Interstate 8 in Arizona - why isn't Yuma a control city westbound?

[Roadgeekteen]

Yuma isn't all that huge- I would use Yuma/San Diego on some signs though.

[JayhawkCO]

That said, I wish New Mexico and Colorado would be "big city" states in my opinion, if not use the next notable town and the next major city as dual control cities; the next major city/interstate junction is most often more well known to out-of-state motorists than small towns or smaller cities along the route.  From Albuquerque for instance, I think the northbound control city on I-25 ought to be Colorado Springs* (or dual Santa Fe / Colorado Springs), southbound control ought to be El Paso** (or dual Las Cruces / El Paso); and on I-40, the westbound control from Albuquerque should be Flagstaff, and eastbound control should be Amarillo (if not WB dual Gallup / Flagstaff and EB Santa Rosa / Amarillo). 

From Las Cruces, I-25 SB is El Paso** and I-25 north is Albuquerque; I-10 east is El Paso, but I-10 west should be Tucson instead of Deming (or perhaps use dual Deming / Tucson).

*Colorado Springs is actually the next major city from Albuquerque on I-25 north, despite there being no major interstate junction there (I-25 is the sole freeway running through that city); its population is over 400,000 people, which is why I think it should be a control city, and not use Denver until you're in C. Springs heading north.

**Despite El Paso not being on I-25, it's a straight shot from Albuquerque nonetheless, and a lot of mileage signs on I-25 southbound mention El Paso (the first two being just north of Albuquerque).  And I-25 southbound defaults onto I-10 east (actually runs north-south between Las Cruces and El Paso) at the southern terminus.  And this is why I think El Paso should be the southbound control city from Albuquerque.

For Colorado, I'll mildly disagree.  Pueblo isn't my favorite town, but it does have a population north of 100,000 people, which for out west, is pretty large.  However, I wouldn't hate having Santa Fe or Albuquerque south of Pueblo (dismissing Walsenburg and Trinidad).  Also, what would you propose for I-70 West out of Denver?  If Pueblo is too small, Grand Junction is as well.

Chris

[MattHanson939]

That said, I wish New Mexico and Colorado would be "big city" states in my opinion, if not use the next notable town and the next major city as dual control cities; the next major city/interstate junction is most often more well known to out-of-state motorists than small towns or smaller cities along the route.  From Albuquerque for instance, I think the northbound control city on I-25 ought to be Colorado Springs* (or dual Santa Fe / Colorado Springs), southbound control ought to be El Paso** (or dual Las Cruces / El Paso); and on I-40, the westbound control from Albuquerque should be Flagstaff, and eastbound control should be Amarillo (if not WB dual Gallup / Flagstaff and EB Santa Rosa / Amarillo). 

From Las Cruces, I-25 SB is El Paso** and I-25 north is Albuquerque; I-10 east is El Paso, but I-10 west should be Tucson instead of Deming (or perhaps use dual Deming / Tucson).

*Colorado Springs is actually the next major city from Albuquerque on I-25 north, despite there being no major interstate junction there (I-25 is the sole freeway running through that city); its population is over 400,000 people, which is why I think it should be a control city, and not use Denver until you're in C. Springs heading north.

**Despite El Paso not being on I-25, it's a straight shot from Albuquerque nonetheless, and a lot of mileage signs on I-25 southbound mention El Paso (the first two being just north of Albuquerque).  And I-25 southbound defaults onto I-10 east (actually runs north-south between Las Cruces and El Paso) at the southern terminus.  And this is why I think El Paso should be the southbound control city from Albuquerque.

For Colorado, I'll mildly disagree.  Pueblo isn't my favorite town, but it does have a population north of 100,000 people, which for out west, is pretty large.  However, I wouldn't hate having Santa Fe or Albuquerque south of Pueblo (dismissing Walsenburg and Trinidad).  Also, what would you propose for I-70 West out of Denver?  If Pueblo is too small, Grand Junction is as well.

Chris

I think from Denver, I-25 SB being Colorado Springs and I-25 NB being Ft. Collins is fine; the next major interstate junction (I-25 @ I-80) is Cheyenne, but Ft. Collins is bigger, which is why I'm fine with it being the northbound control city from Denver.  However, I-70 west could be Cove Fort (the routes western terminus) or simply Utah, I-70 east should be Topeka, and I-76 east should be Omaha.  From Colorado Springs, I-25 SB should either be Albuquerque or dual Pueblo/Albuquerque.   And from Pueblo, make Albuquerque the southbound control city.   Continuing into New Mexico, keep Albuquerque as the southbound control city (dismissing Raton, Las Vegas, and Santa Fe).

[Roadgeekteen]

That said, I wish New Mexico and Colorado would be "big city" states in my opinion, if not use the next notable town and the next major city as dual control cities; the next major city/interstate junction is most often more well known to out-of-state motorists than small towns or smaller cities along the route.  From Albuquerque for instance, I think the northbound control city on I-25 ought to be Colorado Springs* (or dual Santa Fe / Colorado Springs), southbound control ought to be El Paso** (or dual Las Cruces / El Paso); and on I-40, the westbound control from Albuquerque should be Flagstaff, and eastbound control should be Amarillo (if not WB dual Gallup / Flagstaff and EB Santa Rosa / Amarillo). 

From Las Cruces, I-25 SB is El Paso** and I-25 north is Albuquerque; I-10 east is El Paso, but I-10 west should be Tucson instead of Deming (or perhaps use dual Deming / Tucson).

*Colorado Springs is actually the next major city from Albuquerque on I-25 north, despite there being no major interstate junction there (I-25 is the sole freeway running through that city); its population is over 400,000 people, which is why I think it should be a control city, and not use Denver until you're in C. Springs heading north.

**Despite El Paso not being on I-25, it's a straight shot from Albuquerque nonetheless, and a lot of mileage signs on I-25 southbound mention El Paso (the first two being just north of Albuquerque).  And I-25 southbound defaults onto I-10 east (actually runs north-south between Las Cruces and El Paso) at the southern terminus.  And this is why I think El Paso should be the southbound control city from Albuquerque.

For Colorado, I'll mildly disagree.  Pueblo isn't my favorite town, but it does have a population north of 100,000 people, which for out west, is pretty large.  However, I wouldn't hate having Santa Fe or Albuquerque south of Pueblo (dismissing Walsenburg and Trinidad).  Also, what would you propose for I-70 West out of Denver?  If Pueblo is too small, Grand Junction is as well.

Chris

I think from Denver, I-25 SB being Colorado Springs and I-25 NB being Ft. Collins is fine, considering that even though the next major interstate junction (I-25 @ I-80) is Cheyenne simply due to the fact that Ft. Collins is bigger than Cheyenne.  However, I-70 west could be Cove Fort (the routes western terminus), I-70 east should be Topeka, and I-76 east should be Omaha.  From Colorado Springs, I-25 SB should either be Albuquerque or dual Pueblo/Albuquerque.   And from Pueblo, make Albuquerque the southbound control city.   Continuing into New Mexico, keep Albuquerque as the southbound control city (dismissing Raton, Las Vegas, and Santa Fe).

Cove Fort? Just use Las Vegas.

[hotdogPi]

This is where using a state as a control city is helpful. Signing it as Utah works for pretty much the whole state.

[KeithE4Phx]

Yuma isn't all that huge- I would use Yuma/San Diego on some signs though.

Yuma is a city of close to 100,000 people, with a metro area twice that.  It's the 2nd largest city in Arizona outside of metro Phoenix (after Tucson).

[Bobby5280]

Given how much Yuma has grown in recent years it deserves to be a control city. It's a halfway point of sorts for the entirety of I-8. I was a little kid when my dad was stationed at MCAS Yuma. It was one of my favorite places growing up as a Marine Corps brat. Yuma was a fraction of its size back then. All the development East of the Marine Corps base going up to the Fortuna Foothills wasn't there at all when I was a kid. It was pretty much all barren desert. A lot of the stuff on the current West and South sides of Yuma wasn't there either.

Yuma is also a pretty important destination in military terms. The Marine base is the biggest employer in the area. The Army's Yuma Proving Ground also has a lot of jobs.

[MattHanson939]

Cove Fort? Just use Las Vegas.

I-70 doesn't even run close to Las Vegas.  In this case, make Utah the westbound control from Denver.

If you want to use a city not on an interstate as a control city, the most sensical way to do this is if that city is close by on an adjacent route and is a straight shot.

Good examples of this:

- I-8 in Arizona using Tucson as the eastbound control from Yuma
- On I-80 in New Jersey, New York City is the EB control as it defaults on to I-95 NB at the route's eastern terminus in Teaneck, and I-95 will take you straight into NYC via the George Washington Bridge
- CA-99 uses Los Angeles as the SB control city from Visalia and Bakersfield as traffic will default onto I-5 SB at the southern terminus
- El Paso is the SB control city on I-25 in New Mexico from Las Cruces (and it would also make sense to use El Paso as the SB control from Albuquerque)

Unusual instances of using a city not on a highway as a control city:

- I-40 in Arizona uses Los Angeles as the WB control city.   Now this instance is unusual in that I-40 doesn't run close to LA, neither does I-15.  However, I can think of two reasons behind this.  1) I-40 is a major trucking corridor, and the truck traffic using that highway goes to Los Angeles (via I-15 and I-10) or originates out of there.  2) This is very likely a holdover from the days when US 66 was signed; that highway did go to Los Angeles.  But since US 66 was decommissioned over 30 years ago, I think it would make more sense to use San Bernardino as the westbound control city on I-40 from Flagstaff.

- I-8 from Yuma to Gila Bend uses Tucson and Phoenix as dual control cities going eastbound.  Tucson makes sense, but Phoenix doesn't since I-8 does not even run close to that city.  I think only Tucson should be the EB control on I-8, and there should not be a mention of Phoenix until the junction with Arizona state route 85 near Gila Bend.

[MattHanson939]

After doing more research, I discovered that Grand Junction is indeed the most logical choice for the WB control city on I-70 from Denver because of its population of 67,000 habitants; and after Grand Junction there are no more sizable cities along I-70 west.

Plus, I figured that on I-25 south going from Denver, Colorado Springs is the perfect choice.  But from C. Springs, I would dual sign Pueblo / Albuquerque.  And from Pueblo to the NM border, only sign Albuquerque (dismiss Trinidad and Raton).  Within New Mexico, keep Albuquerque as the primary control city on I-25 south but have Santa Fe as a secondary (dual sign Santa Fe / Albuquerque at some major interchanges with US routes), skip over Las Vegas and only mention it on distance signs as you get closer to that town.  From Albuquerque, have El Paso become the primary control, with Las Cruces being a secondary (dual sign Las Cruces / El Paso on some overheads within ABQ).

Going north from ABQ on I-25, have Denver be the primary control but use Santa Fe as a secondary (e.g. dual signing Santa Fe / Denver on some overheads).  From Santa Fe to the CO border, keep Denver as a control city.

[Roadwarriors79]

I have seen older pics online of I-10 at the I-8 junction. At some point I-8 was signed "Yuma -- San Diego". That old signage has long since been replaced.

[MattHanson939]

If a state insists on a small city, then two control cities should be listed on BGSs: the small city and the next upcoming large city.

I completely agree with you.  New Mexico in particular needs to do this at least if not follow Arizona's suit. 

• Within Albuquerque, I-25 should be Santa Fe / Denver going north, going south should be Las Cruces / El Paso.  I-40 west should be Gallup / Flagstaff, and I-40 east should be Santa Rosa / Amarillo.
• Continuing north on I-25 from Santa Fe to the Colorado state line, it should be signed Las Vegas / Denver, Raton / Denver, and then Trinidad / Denver.
• Going south from the Colorado border, I-25 south should be Santa Fe / Albuquerque, then just Albuquerque
• I-10 west from Las Cruces should be Deming / Tucson, then Lordsburg / Tucson, and then just Tucson.  Going east from the Arizona border should be Lordsburg / El Paso, Deming / El Paso, Las Cruces / El Paso, then just El Paso.  Or it should be just Las Cruces / El Paso and then El Paso.

[Scott5114]

Santa Fe is well-known enough outside of New Mexico that there's little need to have it share a sign with Denver.

[roadman65]

Cove Fort? Just use Las Vegas.

I-70 doesn't even run close to Las Vegas.  In this case, make Utah the westbound control from Denver.

If you want to use a city not on an interstate as a control city, the most sensical way to do this is if that city is close by on an adjacent route and is a straight shot.

Good examples of this:

- I-8 in Arizona using Tucson as the eastbound control from Yuma
- On I-80 in New Jersey, New York City is the EB control as it defaults on to I-95 NB at the route's eastern terminus in Teaneck, and I-95 will take you straight into NYC via the George Washington Bridge
- CA-99 uses Los Angeles as the SB control city from Visalia and Bakersfield as traffic will default onto I-5 SB at the southern terminus
- El Paso is the SB control city on I-25 in New Mexico from Las Cruces (and it would also make sense to use El Paso as the SB control from Albuquerque)

Unusual instances of using a city not on a highway as a control city:

- I-40 in Arizona uses Los Angeles as the WB control city.   Now this instance is unusual in that I-40 doesn't run close to LA, neither does I-15.  However, I can think of two reasons behind this.  1) I-40 is a major trucking corridor, and the truck traffic using that highway goes to Los Angeles (via I-15 and I-10) or originates out of there.  2) This is very likely a holdover from the days when US 66 was signed; that highway did go to Los Angeles.  But since US 66 was decommissioned over 30 years ago, I think it would make more sense to use San Bernardino as the westbound control city on I-40 from Flagstaff.

- I-8 from Yuma to Gila Bend uses Tucson and Phoenix as dual control cities going eastbound.  Tucson makes sense, but Phoenix doesn't since I-8 does not even run close to that city.  I think only Tucson should be the EB control on I-8, and there should not be a mention of Phoenix until the junction with Arizona state route 85 near Gila Bend.

Arizona DOT rep once told me that being I-40 replaced US 66 they decided to use its control city ( as US 66 went there originally) as well.

This was before email when you'd rely on the postal service and paper to exchange conversion.

[JayhawkCO]

This is where using a state as a control city is helpful. Signing it as Utah works for pretty much the whole state.

Guess I never responded to these "Utah" suggestions. (Just quoting this one as it's the shortest response.) I hate control states in general, but at least can understand them when you're close to a state border. Given that Utah is 250+ miles away from Denver, then I really hate the idea. I don't know the exact numbers obviously, but I would bet that 99.9% of the traffic heading west on I-70 from Denver is not heading to Utah. Grand Junction is fine, but if we were going to change it to anything, I'd almost prefer Vail or Silverthorne since so much of the traffic heading out of Denver is going to the mountains for outdoor recreation.

[kphoger]

I don't know the exact numbers obviously, but I would bet that 99.9% of the traffic heading west on I-70 from Denver is not heading to Utah.

The AADT west of Mack is roughly 10% the AADT through the Mount Vernon Creek canyon heading out of Denver.  So it's guaranteed that at least 90% of traffic leaving Denver isn't headed to Utah.

[MattHanson939]

Santa Fe is well-known enough outside of New Mexico that there's little need to have it share a sign with Denver.

While I get that Santa Fe is a well-known tourist destination, I'm going to argue that Denver should also be signed on northbound I-25 from Albuquerque.  And here is my reason.  Denver is the next biggest city after Albuquerque that has a major interstate junction.  And that's why it makes it onto the bottom line of a couple distance signs in Albuquerque (the first at Exit 228 reads Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Denver; and the second one just before Exit 234 reads Bernalillo, Jct. US 550, Denver).  I think Denver should consistently be the bottom-line control city on all distance signs on I-25 going from Albuquerque to the Colorado state line.

Another reason for my argument is that it wouldn't make much sense to have I-25 north be signed for Santa Fe and I-25 south be El Paso and skip over Las Cruces, which is bigger than Santa Fe.  That's why to make things more consistent, if New Mexico were to sign the next big cities like Arizona does, then 25 north would be signed for Denver and 25 south for El Paso.  However, unlike Arizona, I would have Santa Fe and Las Cruces be secondary control points going north and south, respectively.  That's why I'm arguing for the dual control city signage (secondary on top, primary on bottom).  In fact, a few times, I've seen instances of this occurring (i.e. I-5 south from Seattle dual-signing Tacoma / Portland, CA-99 south from Fresno dual-signing Bakersfield / Los Angeles, CA-99 north from Bakersfield dual-signing Fresno / Sacramento, etc.)

[JayhawkCO]

Santa Fe is well-known enough outside of New Mexico that there's little need to have it share a sign with Denver.

While I get that Santa Fe is a well-known tourist destination, I'm going to argue that Denver should also be signed on northbound I-25 from Albuquerque.  And here is my reason.  Denver is the next biggest city after Albuquerque that has a major interstate junction.  And that's why it makes it onto the bottom line of a couple distance signs in Albuquerque (the first at Exit 228 reads Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Denver; and the second one just before Exit 234 reads Bernalillo, Jct. US 550, Denver).  I think Denver should consistently be the bottom-line control city on all distance signs on I-25 going from Albuquerque to the Colorado state line.

Another reason for my argument is that it wouldn't make much sense to have I-25 north be signed for Santa Fe and I-25 south be El Paso and skip over Las Cruces, which is bigger than Santa Fe.  That's why to make things more consistent, if New Mexico were to be like Arizona with regards to interstate control cities (albeit using smaller but important in-state cities as secondary points) I'd dual-sign 25 north Santa Fe/Denver and 25 south Las Cruces/El Paso.

If western I-42 makes it to Raton, do you then change your mind and want Raton signed?

[MattHanson939]

If western I-42 makes it to Raton, do you then change your mind and want Raton signed?

The most likely scenario will be an extension of I-27 from its current northern terminus in Amarillo, Texas to Raton.

Back to topic, if that happens, I would still sign Denver as the primary control city on I-25 north from Albuquerque.  Raton would be appropriate to use as a secondary from Las Vegas and going south from Trinidad, but not a primary even though there would be an interstate junction as it's a small town.  Perhaps sign Pueblo or Denver on I-27 north (most traffic will probably continue north on I-25 to the larger Colorado cities). 

Denver on the other hand is the largest city in Colorado and has interstate junctions going for it; the main junction there is I-25 at I-70.

Similarly, once I-11 is extended into Arizona, Phoenix is going to be the primary control city going south from Las Vegas; and north from the Phoenix area, it'll be signed for Las Vegas.  If anything, Kingman will be a secondary control city.

[LilianaUwU]

Limon amirite gamers

[MattHanson939]

Update:

If I-27 gets extended to Raton, Dumas would probably be the control city from Amarillo, then Dalhart next.  From there to the New Mexico state line, I would dual-sign Clayton / Raton.  And once in New Mexico, dual-sign Raton / Pueblo.  Because Pueblo would be the primary control city, it would then become a secondary on I-25.  At the new northern terminus, the ramp for 25 north would be dual-signed Pueblo / Denver.

[Bobby5280]

My feeling on control cities for mileage marker signs is any city or town at a significant highway junction should be listed as a control city.

Going all the way back to the original post that started this thread, yes, Yuma absolutely should be a control city along Interstate 8. If Casa Grande or even Gila Bend qualifies as a control city on green signs then so should Yuma. The city now has over 100,000 residents. It is NOT some small po dunk town. It has an important Marine Corps base there. It's also a junction point with US-95 and I-8. US-95 is the only North-South highway for quite a stretch either East or West.

Raton, NM is not nearly as big a town as Yuma. However it is at an important highway junction point. Therefore it definitely deserves to be a control city. I definitely do not expect I-27 to be extended to Raton any time soon. Not as long as the New Mexico state government has its current ideology in place regarding highways. Extensions to I-27 are just going to happen only in Texas for the time being. The notion of a Western I-42 getting extended into New Mexico is even more of a reach. If I-42 is built in Oklahoma I'd certainly like to see it extended West to Enid and Woodward. But it's a long shot for the highway to get extended farther West into New Mexico. I think chances are better for US-287 in Boise City getting upgraded as a different leg of I-27 into Colorado.

Anyway, my opinion is control cities can be more than just big cities. They should be at any point in the highway network where an important route junction is present. That's what matters.

[MattHanson939]

My feeling on control cities for mileage marker signs is any city or town at a significant highway junction should be listed as a control city.

Going all the way back to the original post that started this thread, yes, Yuma absolutely should be a control city along Interstate 8. If Casa Grande or even Gila Bend qualifies as a control city on green signs then so should Yuma. The city now has over 100,000 residents. It is NOT some small po dunk town. It has an important Marine Corps base there. It's also a junction point with US-95 and I-8. US-95 is the only North-South highway for quite a stretch either East or West.

Raton, NM is not nearly as big a town as Yuma. However it is at an important highway junction point. Therefore it definitely deserves to be a control city. I definitely do not expect I-27 to be extended to Raton any time soon. Not as long as the New Mexico state government has its current ideology in place regarding highways. Extensions to I-27 are just going to happen only in Texas for the time being. The notion of a Western I-42 getting extended into New Mexico is even more of a reach. If I-42 is built in Oklahoma I'd certainly like to see it extended West to Enid and Woodward. But it's a long shot for the highway to get extended farther West into New Mexico. I think chances are better for US-287 in Boise City getting upgraded as a different leg of I-27 into Colorado.

Anyway, my opinion is control cities can be more than just big cities. They should be at any point in the highway network where an important route junction is present. That's what matters.

I respect your opinion.  However, the original concept of control cities was to guide motorists to major destinations, and that was back in the days before we had things like GPS and paper maps were the only navigational tool.  If a certain route is the most direct to get to a major city from where you originate, then it makes sense to sign it as a control city, even if it's not on the route itself but close by on an adjacent route.

That's why Tucson is the primary control city going east on I-8 in Arizona, and not Casa Grande.  However, I wouldn't mind westbound if I-8 were to be dual-signed Yuma / San Diego, and then just San Diego going from Yuma.

[thenetwork]

Grand Junction is fine for I-70 West traffic out of Denver...

1) It is the largest city between Metro Denver and I-15 in Utah.

2) Most regional travelers only go as far west on I-70 as Grand Junction.  And despite it's smaller population (actually closer to 200,000 if you include all the residents in the area that do NOT live within the city limits proper) the area is a popular tourist spot for Coloradans (wineries, mountain biking, festivals, canyons, hiking, rafting... -- all things you cannot find elsewhere en masse in the state).

[doorknob60]

Grand Junction is fine for I-70 West traffic out of Denver...

1) It is the largest city between Metro Denver and I-15 in Utah.

2) Most regional travelers only go as far west on I-70 as Grand Junction.  And despite it's smaller population (actually closer to 200,000 if you include all the residents in the area that do NOT live within the city limits proper) the area is a popular tourist spot for Coloradans (wineries, mountain biking, festivals, canyons, hiking, rafting... -- all things you cannot find elsewhere en masse in the state).

Agree. In addition:

3) The I-70 and US-6 split in Green River majorly splits up long distance traffic. If you were going to skip Grand Junction for something bigger, you have to pick something beyond the split. What do you even pick? Salt Lake City doesn't make much sense out of Denver, because I-80 is usually faster. Las Vegas, I guess, but that's a crazy swing, and confusing to people that are heading towards Utah destinations. And St George is similar in size to Grand Junction (and Utah skips it on I-15) so definitely not that.

[kphoger]

I honestly don't understand NOT using Grand Junction.  It's such an obvious choice.