Interchanges with control cities from many different states

[thspfc]

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

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

Nobody cares about or knows the name of the tiny town where they exited I-70 in the middle of nowhere.

[thspfc]

This forum has always had an odd attraction to off-the-wall tiny irrelavant control cities, like Green River UT or Fort Stockton TX. It makes zero sense.

[SkyPesos]

Besides, if you were looking for the fastest route to SLC from Denver, you would be using I-25 to I-80. Vegas would be a better control city.

ftfy, at least for downtown to downtown. I-70/US 6/I-15 may be faster for Denver to some of the southern SLC suburbs or Provo.

[SkyPesos]

This forum has always had an odd attraction to off-the-wall tiny irrelavant control cities, like Green River UT or Fort Stockton TX. It makes zero sense.

New Mexico is way worse than us at that

[ran4sh]

@ webny99, CoreySamson, etc

But no one is saying Salt Lake City is an appropriate control city for the section of I-70 west of US 6. In that type of situation the Salt Lake City signage would follow US 6 and I-70 would change to a different city such as Las Vegas.

[US 89]

Nobody cares about or knows the name of the tiny town where they exited I-70 in the middle of nowhere.

In this case that's not really true. While Green River is not big, it is very well known among the general public because it's the only town within a 50+ mile radius. Just about everyone in the Salt Lake area - even non-road enthusiasts - knows where it is, and most people have probably stopped there at one time or another for gas or food. Same deal as Limon, Colorado.

As far as the Grand Jct control signage goes, as far as I'm concerned you need to do one of 3 things. In order of preference, those are

1) Utah
2) Green River
3) dual sign Las Vegas and Salt Lake City

[CoreySamson]

@ webny99, CoreySamson, etc

But no one is saying Salt Lake City is an appropriate control city for the section of I-70 west of US 6. In that type of situation the Salt Lake City signage would follow US 6 and I-70 would change to a different city such as Las Vegas.

That is very true, good point.

[ran4sh]

Of course, for the specific example of I-70 leaving Denver to the west, Salt Lake City cannot be used because the best route would be I-25 north to I-80 west. Which means, if I-70 west from Denver is signed for Las Vegas, then Salt Lake City cannot even be used further on because control cities are supposed to remain signed until reaching the city. So the only reason to even have Salt Lake City on I-70 would be if the control city from Denver were an in-state city, and then it changed to Salt Lake once that in-state city is reached.

[GaryV]

(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.

Then you'd hate the control cities for metro Detroit.

I-696 - Lansing (OK per your rule) and Port Huron (minor fail per your rule - I-696 ends at I-94 which you then take to Port Huron)
I-275 - Toledo (OK) and Flint (fails your rule - you have to use I-96 to US-23 before reaching I-75, when you are already to Flint)

[hotdogPi]

If it's signed as Green River, it needs to be signed as Green River UT. It's an ambiguous city name in the area, and the one in southwestern Wyoming has a 5-digit population, not a 3-digit population.

[kphoger]

In the case of "Indiana" for I-90/I-94, I would question what value that has for the average driver. All or almost all of them know that the road goes to Indiana. The more valuable information is where in Indiana does this route go, or where does it go beyond Indiana; specifically, what are the major destinations or waypoints. This road goes to Indiana is simply too vague; there are many roads that go to many different parts of Indiana. Part of the point of the control city is to make it specific to where the road itself goes (as opposed to where you might be going if you find yourself on this road) to provide the most concise information possible.

Admittedly, finding the right balance is tricky. I'd consider using Gary first (since it's the confluence of I-65, I-90, and I-94), and then start using Cleveland for I-90 once you get beyond I-65.

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

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

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

I agree with using Gary.

It may be a dying pit of rubble, but everyone knows where it is.  Everyone knows that, to get from Chicago to Indianapolis/Detroit/Toledo/Cleveland, or even just to pop over to the Indiana dunes or Notre Dame, you gotta go through Gary first.

If you want to add a second control city for the sake of faraway out-of-towners unfamiliar with Gary, then go with Toledo or Cleveland or whatever, but Gary should be on there first.

[webny99]

@ webny99, CoreySamson, etc

But no one is saying Salt Lake City is an appropriate control city for the section of I-70 west of US 6. In that type of situation the Salt Lake City signage would follow US 6 and I-70 would change to a different city such as Las Vegas.

Yeah, I get that. I was referring only to the sections east of US 6.

As far as the Grand Jct control signage goes, as far as I'm concerned you need to do one of 3 things. In order of preference, those are

1) Utah
2) Green River
3) dual sign Las Vegas and Salt Lake City

I concur. The only thing I would note is that while you can make a decent case for using Utah between Grand Junction and the Utah line, what about once you get past the Utah line? Green River might end up being the best option between there and US 6 anyways, so it might be simpler to just use Green River the whole way.

If it's signed as Green River, it needs to be signed as Green River UT. It's an ambiguous city name in the area, and the one in southwestern Wyoming has a 5-digit population, not a 3-digit population.

I have no problem with that.

[kphoger]

I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary:  everyone going that way knows where Green River, everyone going that way has to go through it to get where they're going, and a second control city could be added for faraway long-distance travelers unfamiliar with it.

[webny99]

(2) If a 3di route, such as a beltway, reaches its parent before it reaches that city.

Then you'd hate the control cities for metro Detroit.

I-696 - Lansing (OK per your rule) and Port Huron (minor fail per your rule - I-696 ends at I-94 which you then take to Port Huron)
I-275 - Toledo (OK) and Flint (fails your rule - you have to use I-96 to US-23 before reaching I-75, when you are already to Flint)

I kind of figured something like your Port Huron example would come up. I guess I would amend my rule to say that it's fine if it reaches any 2di, not just its parent.

I do disagree with use of Flint on I-275. Flint makes sense in a world where I-275 is complete all the way to I-75, but sadly, that's not the world we live in. I'd probably use Novi for I-275 NB... or perhaps Lansing if you wanted to get really creative.

[roadman65]

I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary:  everyone going that way knows where Green River, everyone going that way has to go through it to get where they're going, and a second control city could be added for faraway long-distance travelers unfamiliar with it.

Do what NJ does now on I-195. Sign as I-70 WEST TO I-15 Las Vegasas NJ signs I-195 East to NJ 138/ Belmar.

[hbelkins]

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

Flagstaff is an appropriate one to use because it's at a major interstate intersection. Same with Washington, Pa.; Cambridge, Ohio; Wytheville, Va.; Beckley, WV; and a number of others. It's interesting how some states use smaller ones and others don't -- in Wytheville's case, it's used on one of the intersecting routes (I-77) but not the other (I-81.)

[CoreySamson]

I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary:  everyone going that way knows where Green River, everyone going that way has to go through it to get where they're going, and a second control city could be added for faraway long-distance travelers unfamiliar with it.

I like this idea a lot. I think it should be the standard everywhere. For example, on I-69 north in Houston, I believe that the control city is Cleveland, TX., but it would make even more sense for long-distance travelers if Shreveport or Lufkin was put on the sign beneath Cleveland.

[CtrlAltDel]

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

Chris

South Bend, maybe. Flagstaff, maybe not. Because I've spent a lot of time in the Chicago area, and less so in the Southwest. And, so I think that the best thing to do is to go with places that more people are likely to be familiar with, and if that means using larger cities or states, then so be it.

Flagstaff is an appropriate one to use because it's at a major interstate intersection. Same with Washington, Pa.; Cambridge, Ohio; Wytheville, Va.; Beckley, WV; and a number of others. It's interesting how some states use smaller ones and others don't -- in Wytheville's case, it's used on one of the intersecting routes (I-77) but not the other (I-81.)

I can't say I agree. I currently live (more or less) where I-26 and I-81 meet, and so I'm somewhat familiar with the region, and I think all of these cities are useless for wayfinding.

I feel about Green River the same way I feel about Gary

Oddly enough, I do too.

[US 89]

I concur. The only thing I would note is that while you can make a decent case for using Utah between Grand Junction and the Utah line, what about once you get past the Utah line? Green River might end up being the best option between there and US 6 anyways, so it might be simpler to just use Green River the whole way.

Once you get past the Utah line, the interchanges are all so small and in in the middle of nowhere that smaller, more local control cities are acceptable anyway - and that is what Utah does. Utah's control points for I-70 are generally Jct I-15, Richfield, Salina, Green River, and Grand Junction - with a couple Denvers, Las Vegases, and Crescent Junctions thrown in for good measure.

If it's signed as Green River, it needs to be signed as Green River UT. It's an ambiguous city name in the area, and the one in southwestern Wyoming has a 5-digit population, not a 3-digit population.

Disagree. No one on I-70 at that point is going to think they're heading to the one in Wyoming. It might seem ambiguous from afar, but nobody in GJ or eastern Utah talking about Green River means the Wyoming one.

Sure, the one in Wyoming is quite a bit bigger, but in terms of navigational landmarks... as someone who's driven through these areas several times I'd say they are probably of equal importance. Green River WY is somewhat overshadowed by Rock Springs anyway.

[Gnutella]

The problem is that Toledo means nothing to most drivers in the Chicago area. If you're going to use Toledo, you might as well use Cleveland: it's much bigger, not much farther away, and a vastly higher percentage of people would know where it is (or at least be able to associate it with a general direction of travel).

I'm good with that.

Des Moines → Chicago and Chicago → Cleveland are approximately the same distance, too.  Better yet, just use both:  Toledo/Cleveland.

I'm in favor of using multiple control cities at times as well.

[Gnutella]

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

So what's the issue?

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

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

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

Either way, COYS.

Chris

Situations like you describe, and also the two major east/west highways in Pennsylvania, are why I think multiple control cities are a good idea at times.