Interchanges with control cities from many different states

[webny99]

In general, I am not a fan of using control cities beyond the end of the route. I-76 East from Denver might be an exception, though.
...

How about Boston from Hartford on I-84 or Providence for I-384?  The former doesn't come within 50 miles but is freeway connected (via the Mass Pike), while the latter doesn't come within 80 miles, is not freeway connected, and isn't even the best route.

Boston for I-84, sure. It is effectively going to Boston since I-84 ends at I-90.

Providence for I-384 is a bit more complicated. It makes sense in theory, and I'm OK with the transfer to US 6, but my issue would be that it's not the fastest route (CT 74/US 44/CT 101 is presumably the route most people would use). There's not much point in signing Providence as the control city unless it's the route most people, including locals, would know and use. My pie-in-the-sky solution would be to make spot improvements on US 6 to shave a few minutes off (and thus becoming the fastest route), and then sign it as "I-384 TO US 6 / Providence"

[hobsini2]

I like the use of states in situations where there's no clear "next destination" for travelers within a reasonable range. For example, I agree with IDOT signing "Indiana" in Chicago, because there aren't really any other real options. South Bend? Nobody cares, other than Notre Dame students. Toledo? Too small considering the distance from Chicago. However, I don't agree with IDOT signing "Wisconsin" for I-90 and I-94 WB. I would do "Milwaukee" for I-94 and "Rockford" for I-90.

At the Edens Junction, IDOT does use Milwaukee and Rockford/O'Hare.  The first mention of any of that is where the reversible express lanes have an exit to the locals before Addison St. I actually find it more amazing that neither O'Hare or Midway are mentioned either at the Byrne Circle or the Ohio St Feeder onto 90/94.

[hobsini2]

Nah.  The population of metro Des Moines is barely bigger than that of metro Toledo, and Des Moines is 90 miles farther away from Chicago than Toledo is.

They should use Toledo.

I-80 used to use Toledo EB beginning at I-55. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Finterstate%2F80.html&psig=AOvVaw25pBlvyxLKOYlcMyDn96CK&ust=1612762042125000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCOikivqE1-4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

And Des Moines WB used to be used. Now it's just Indiana and Iowa.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Fimages%2Fnb55at80_082606b.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fillinois%2Finterstate%2F55.html&tbnid=ra5jkhyx1ecGaM&vet=12ahUKEwjSoYmKhdfuAhUKTa0KHT7HBd4QMygMegUIARCOAQ..i&docid=OFFEWLiuq4VuIM&w=521&h=342&q=I-80%20des%20moines%20joliet%20signs&ved=2ahUKEwjSoYmKhdfuAhUKTa0KHT7HBd4QMygMegUIARCOAQ

[thspfc]

Given the use of Rockford, I don't see why using South Bend would be an issue.

Agreed. 

2010 Census:
Rockford Metro Area - 349,431
South Bend Metro Area - 319,224

Not that far off. 

If these cities are too small to be control cities, then from Denver, you get:
I-25 North - Does not exist
I-25 South - Colorado Springs
I-70 West - Does not exist
I-70 East - Kansas City
I-76 East - Does not exist

Chris

Chris has no clue what in heck he's talking about. Madison's metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it's not that they're too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don't care about South Bend. Some probably don't even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital

So what's the issue?

[Flint1979]

The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio

What gets me is that it's signed as Des Moines skipping over an entire state and several other cities that come well before Des Moines such as any of the Joliet, any of the Quad Cities, even Iowa City. I'm surprised it doesn't just say Iowa.

[Flint1979]

The I-80/90/94/US 6/IN 51 interchange has:
Lake Station, IN
Detroit, MI
Chicago, IL
Des Moines, IA
Ohio

Love how it's just "Ohio"  for the last one while the rest are cities Does it hurt to sign Toledo instead, Ohio can mean Cincinnati too for all we know, and the turnpike doesn't go anywhere near Cincy. I find Indiana's control city choices to be pretty good in general, and then there's the turnpike...

It should be South Bend but they mean it's just going in the direction of Ohio basically.

[Flint1979]

I-94 and I-96 in Detroit has the following:

WB I-96: Lansing
EB I-96: Canada
WB I-94: Chicago
EB I-94: Port Huron

[JayhawkCO]

Chris has no clue what in heck he’s talking about. Madison’s metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it’s not that they’re too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don’t care about South Bend. Some probably don’t even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital

So what’s the issue?

I think you and I just have different definitions of what a control city is.  In my opinion, a control city is the next reasonably major destination when following a highway.  There are plenty of towns that are control cities that no one cares about, but nonetheless, they are the next semi-major stop on the highway.  If I get on I-70 east from my house, do I care about Limon?  Of course not.  I'm probably heading back to KC to visit friends and family.  But that doesn't mean that Limon, Hays, Salina, and Topeka shouldn't be control cities along the way. 

I just don't like the use of states as control cities because it defies the convention. You obviously want people to know generally where those places are so they know which direction to go.  I think most Chicagoans know that South Bend is in Indiana and that Indiana is east of Chicago, which fulfills the point of having a control city in the first place.  People that don't know that South Bend in an hour and a half away probably also don't know that Rockford is an hour and a half away.  I would also argue strongly that nationally, South Bend is far more well known than Rockford. 

What I find strange about your opinion, is that you argue for proximity in the Madison vs. Toledo example that I brought up (since they're close enough to the same size), but then dismiss it when comparing Rockford and South Bend (which are also close enough to the same size).  I think consistency (hence my dislike for using states) matters.

Either way, COYS.

Chris

[thspfc]

Chris has no clue what in heck he's talking about. Madison's metro is bigger than Toledo by over 20k per the 2019 estimate. And Madison is also growing by nearly 10% while Toledo is shrinking. Again, it's not that they're too small. Stop acting like this is a one-size-fits-all thing. Travelers on I-90 and I-94 don't care about South Bend. Some probably don't even know where it is. Comparisons to Rockford are not relevant because Rockford is within Illinois and is a well-known, relevant city within that metro area. As for Madison and Toledo, Madison is:
- Closer
- A state capital

So what's the issue?

I think you and I just have different definitions of what a control city is.  In my opinion, a control city is the next reasonably major destination when following a highway.  There are plenty of towns that are control cities that no one cares about, but nonetheless, they are the next semi-major stop on the highway.  If I get on I-70 east from my house, do I care about Limon?  Of course not.  I'm probably heading back to KC to visit friends and family.  But that doesn't mean that Limon, Hays, Salina, and Topeka shouldn't be control cities along the way. 

I just don't like the use of states as control cities because it defies the convention. You obviously want people to know generally where those places are so they know which direction to go.  I think most Chicagoans know that South Bend is in Indiana and that Indiana is east of Chicago, which fulfills the point of having a control city in the first place.  People that don't know that South Bend in an hour and a half away probably also don't know that Rockford is an hour and a half away.  I would also argue strongly that nationally, South Bend is far more well known than Rockford. 

What I find strange about your opinion, is that you argue for proximity in the Madison vs. Toledo example that I brought up (since they're close enough to the same size), but then dismiss it when comparing Rockford and South Bend (which are also close enough to the same size).  I think consistency (hence my dislike for using states) matters.

Either way, COYS.

Chris

I guess we do have different ideas of what control cities should be. To me, it's a very dynamic concept that takes into account the type of highway and traffic patterns on that highway. A far-off, small town that 99% of travelers have no reason to stop in is not helpful on a major cross-country Interstate like I-90, 80, or 70. Once again going back to the "Indiana" debate: the biggest reason why "Indiana" is helpful for me is that while it's not a city, it is a well-known landmark or waypoint. When people are planning a road trip through many states, they look at major points (i.e. state borders or big cities, like Chicago). If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

[US 89]

One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah".

Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population. Richfield is a little bigger, but also has the disadvantage that over half of I-70's westbound traffic load exits onto US 6 just west of Green River. St George and Las Vegas are still bigger, but those still have the US 6 problem and also may confuse drivers heading to the Wasatch Front, where Vegas is the I-15 southbound control.

If you go back and look at historic street view, you'll notice it used to be Green River. But seeing as Green River is not going to be anyone's destination, and I-70 is pretty much the only road from here to anywhere in Utah, a state name control point seems appropriate.

[webny99]

One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah".

Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population.

Yeah, I don't have a major problem with that one... although I would also be fine with Green River until US 6 and then either St. George or Las Vegas beyond there.

If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

As for finding balance, what's wrong with my suggestion upthread (see below)? Just use Gary, since almost everyone is going that far, and then use the longer-distance controls once you get past Gary.

Gary is a dying pit of rubble that some might still consider a city.

That it may be, but the reason it would be used as a control city isn't because it's a destination: It's because it's the confluence of I-65, I-80, I-90, and I-94. One thing almost all traffic heading east out of Chicago has in common is that they're heading towards Gary. Then from there, they'll split in many directions, at which point different controls can be used. But between Chicago and Gary, I think Gary is as good as you're going to get. It's specific to the route you're on, it's close enough to be relevant, and it's applicable to almost everyone on the road.

Beyond Gary, I'd use Indy for I-65, Cleveland for I-80/I-90, and Detroit for I-94.

[SkyPesos]

One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah".
Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population.

Yeah, I don't have a major problem with that one... although I would also be fine with Green River until US 6 and then either St. George or Las Vegas beyond there.

Las Vegas on WB I-70 is one of the post terminus control cities that I like. SB I-15 past I-70’s terminus in a way act as a continuation of the I-70 corridor to Vegas and SoCal, so it makes sense. Others include Los Angeles on WB I-40 and El Paso on WB I-20.

[thspfc]

One of the few cases I've seen where a control state makes sense is on I-70 in Grand Junction, where the westbound control point is "Utah".
Mostly because there aren't really any other good options. After leaving the Grand Junction area, the next settlement of note you'll come to is Green River, Utah...with a three-digit population.

Yeah, I don't have a major problem with that one... although I would also be fine with Green River until US 6 and then either St. George or Las Vegas beyond there.

Las Vegas on WB I-70 is one of the post terminus control cities that I like. SB I-15 past I-70's terminus in a way act as a continuation of the I-70 corridor to Vegas and SoCal, so it makes sense. Others include Los Angeles on WB I-40 and El Paso on WB I-20.

I personally like the usage of Utah. Westbound I-70 traffic is pretty evenly split between continuing to Vegas on I-15 and exiting at US-6 to go to SLC. Using Green River would be ridiculous, it's way too small for a cross-country Interstate. We on this forum are very familiar with the country compared to most other Americans, so it should be telling that the only reason we ever think about Green River is the I-70/US-6 junction. It's just too insignificant. So I would sign Utah. I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.

[JayhawkCO]

I guess we do have different ideas of what control cities should be. To me, it's a very dynamic concept that takes into account the type of highway and traffic patterns on that highway. A far-off, small town that 99% of travelers have no reason to stop in is not helpful on a major cross-country Interstate like I-90, 80, or 70. Once again going back to the "Indiana" debate: the biggest reason why "Indiana" is helpful for me is that while it's not a city, it is a well-known landmark or waypoint. When people are planning a road trip through many states, they look at major points (i.e. state borders or big cities, like Chicago). If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

So, do you use the control cities as a shorthand for the direction, i.e. you look at "Indiana" before you look at the word "East"?  I guess I grew up in Minnesota where the interstate junctions don't even use control cities, so maybe I'm more acclimated to just looking at it differently.  Same goes for when I'm in a new state that I'm not that familiar with.  I-76 West to Lodi doesn't do too much for me, but I don't need it if I know I'm heading west.

Chris

[ran4sh]

I guess we do have different ideas of what control cities should be. To me, it's a very dynamic concept that takes into account the type of highway and traffic patterns on that highway. A far-off, small town that 99% of travelers have no reason to stop in is not helpful on a major cross-country Interstate like I-90, 80, or 70. Once again going back to the "Indiana" debate: the biggest reason why "Indiana" is helpful for me is that while it's not a city, it is a well-known landmark or waypoint. When people are planning a road trip through many states, they look at major points (i.e. state borders or big cities, like Chicago). If I'm planning a trip between Madison and Cleveland, I look at Chicago as a significant point. I look at the state borders as significant points. South Bend not so much. And it's also relative to distance. Toledo is a fairly significant point, but it's too far from Chicago to be relevant to the local traveler there. Indiana, therefore, is relevant to both the long distance and local traveler in the Chicago area. You need to find a balance between the two. Which is why it's a very slippery slope to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

Focusing on the "local traveler" points. The MUTCD disagrees with you, it actually specifies that the signage is more important for non-local travelers. See, in the 2009 edition, 2E.02 paragraph 1:

The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area.

For local travelers, they can follow route numbers instead of expecting the destinations on Interstate signs to cater to them.

[CtrlAltDel]

You can put me in the camp of people who are fine with state names as big green sign destinations.

When I navigate, at least, I focus on route numbers and directions, with the destination as a back-up or confirmation, that is, a way of verifying that I didn't confuse north with south and east with west, as happens to me every now and again. From that perspective, then, the destination doesn't have to be all that specific. So, if I'm coming up on an interchange with I-90/94, and I want to go west, but I find myself under the sign that says "Indiana," I can say to myself, "Wait a minute, I didn't want to that way." It's not so much, then, that that Indiana is vague or imprecise or that there are other roads that go to the same place, but rather that, at the decision point, Indiana and Wisconsin are stark opposites navigationwise.

The same thing goes with the minor destinations that get put forth as control cities. In my view, smaller cities are pretty much useless for wayfinding since I don't really know where they are (there are admittedly exceptions, mostly in the west), and larger cities, even if distant, are better then in that respect. For that reason, I think that the use of Los Angeles on I-40 West in New Mexico, for example, is a good way to sign things.

I recognize that this isn't how the MUTCD looks at things, but perhaps that should be reconsidered.

[ran4sh]

There's nothing in the MUTCD that would say that Los Angeles is not a valid control city for I-40 west (in AZ and maybe NM). I agree with that point.

[Flint1979]

When I'm traveling and looking for an exit I'm focusing on the exit number not the route or the control city.

[CoreySamson]

The I-30/I-49 interchange in Texarkana has these control cities:
I-30 West: Dallas
I-30 East: Hope, Little Rock
I-49 North: Ashdown, Fort Smith
I-49 South: Houston, Shreveport

So, 3 states. Not that much, but probably the best you'd get with Texas in the name. On a related note, I really like the use of control cities at that interchange. The main sign at the gore uses primary control cities, but on the C/D lanes they use smaller controls plus the large ones. That, IMO, should be the universal standard.

[webny99]

I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.

The point of using Green River would not be because it's a major destination. It's because it's where traffic bound for SLC would turn off. Therefore, Green River is the last common point for the majority of traffic on I-70. Using a control city that is further away could confuse motorists heading in a different direction.

[hotdogPi]

I would tolerate Vegas and maybe even SLC, but Green River would be laughable.

The point of using Green River would not be because it's a major destination. It's because it's where traffic bound for SLC would turn off. Therefore, Green River is the last common point for the majority of traffic on I-70. Using a control city that is further away could confuse motorists heading in a different direction.

I see Green River and think Wyoming, not Utah.

[ran4sh]

Control cities are supposed to be where traffic is going, not merely turn-off points. So assuming the above is true about the majority of I-70 West traffic exiting to use US 6 to Salt Lake City, then the appropriate control city for I-70 leading up to that junction is Salt Lake City rather than Green River.

Why are there so many roadgeeks who think that there is a rule that a route has to actually reach its control city? That rule is absolute non-sense, and would prohibit logical control cities for beltways, for example.

It is a highway system and not merely a collection of different routes.

[webny99]

Why are there so many roadgeeks who think that there is a rule that a route has to actually reach its control city? That rule is absolute non-sense, and would prohibit logical control cities for beltways, for example.

Generally I am OK with a route not reaching its control city in the following circumstances:
(1) If the route ends before it reaches that city.
(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.

The issue with using Salt Lake City for I-70 is that I-70 doesn't even come near SLC, but instead continues to other places that are beyond the logical route to SLC. That has the potential to create confusion. It would be better to use St. George or Las Vegas - both beyond the end of I-70 - instead.

[CoreySamson]

Why are there so many roadgeeks who think that there is a rule that a route has to actually reach its control city? That rule is absolute non-sense, and would prohibit logical control cities for beltways, for example.

Generally I am OK with a route not reaching its control city in the following circumstances:
(1) If the route ends before it reaches that city.
(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.

The issue with using Salt Lake City for I-70 is that I-70 doesn't even come near SLC, but instead continues to other places that are beyond the logical route to SLC. That has the potential to create confusion. It would be better to use St. George or Las Vegas - both beyond the end of I-70 - instead.

Besides, if you were looking for the fastest route to SLC from Denver, you would be exiting off on US 6 in Green River. Vegas would be a better control city.

[JayhawkCO]

You can put me in the camp of people who are fine with state names as big green sign destinations.

When I navigate, at least, I focus on route numbers and directions, with the destination as a back-up or confirmation, that is, a way of verifying that I didn't confuse north with south and east with west, as happens to me every now and again. From that perspective, then, the destination doesn't have to be all that specific. So, if I'm coming up on an interchange with I-90/94, and I want to go west, but I find myself under the sign that says "Indiana," I can say to myself, "Wait a minute, I didn't want to that way." It's not so much, then, that that Indiana is vague or imprecise or that there are other roads that go to the same place, but rather that, at the decision point, Indiana and Wisconsin are stark opposites navigationwise.

The same thing goes with the minor destinations that get put forth as control cities. In my view, smaller cities are pretty much useless for wayfinding since I don't really know where they are (there are admittedly exceptions, mostly in the west), and larger cities, even if distant, are better then in that respect. For that reason, I think that the use of Los Angeles on I-40 West in New Mexico, for example, is a good way to sign things.

I recognize that this isn't how the MUTCD looks at things, but perhaps that should be reconsidered.

If you saw a BGS that said South Bend or Flagstaff though, wouldn't it also make you think "Wait a minute.  I didn't want to go that way" too?

Chris