Limon

[Scott5114]

When it comes to signs for westbound I-70 in Kansas, I'd even prefer "Colorado" used as a control city over Limon.  It's like having "Pulleys Mill" as a control city along I-24 west of Paducah. No one. is going there.

Maybe you could put "America" to guarantee that the control city matches where 100% of people are going.

What if I'm driving to Canada or Mexico though?

Damn, you got me. Better make it "Earth".

Not sure why you had to berate me for my response. It made enough sense. It wouldn't be the first time a state has been used on a control city to give people a general idea where said direction of a highway is headed.

It wasn't the right decision any of the other times it's been done, either.

Destinations should be as reasonably close to a point as you can get. A city is the perfect size. Heck, when California was inventing their first freeway signage they used individual buildings as control points–I've seen 1954 signs with "Civic Center" as the control point.

The control point should be such that the road should be the best route for anyone going anywhere within the boundaries of that control point. If you blow the control point up to the size of a state, you lose so much precision that this cannot be universally true.

Furthermore, the official MUTCD standard on the subject says:

Standard:
Except on approaches to interchanges (see Section 2D.45), the Destination (D1-1 through D1-3) sign (see Figure 2D-7), if used, shall be a horizontal rectangle displaying the name of a city, town, village, or other traffic generator, and a directional arrow.

City, town, village, or other traffic generator. State isn't an option. Unless you consider a state to be a traffic generator. Which would be silly.

Further, when you get into Chapter 2E, we get some more specific guidance on what, exactly, a control city is to be used for:

Standard:
The direction of a freeway and the major destinations or control cities along it shall be clearly identified through the use of appropriate destination legends (see Section 2D.37). Successive freeway guide signs shall provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information. At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.

Guidance:
Control city legends should be used in the following situations along a freeway:

    At interchanges between freeways;
    At separation points of overlapping freeway routes;
    On directional signs on intersecting routes, to guide traffic entering the freeway;
    On Pull-Through signs; and
    On the bottom line of post-interchange distance signs.

"Continuity in destination names" (and the word "and" rather than "or" in the middle of that list) implies that the same control point is to be used in all of the contexts listed. That means that if you use "Colorado" as a destination sign, it needs to appear as the third line on every mileage sign from there to...well, where exactly?

A well-defined central area or central business district should be used where one exists. In other cases, the layout of the community should be considered in relation to the highway being signed and the decision based on where it appears that most drivers would feel that they are in the center of the community in question.

That means you would need to provide the distance to not the state line, but the center of Colorado on every sign between Hays and...wherever the center of Colorado is, I guess Denver.

So at that point, why not just sign Denver instead of faffing about with control states?

[JayhawkCO]

For all discussion on this topic, I will refer everyone again to the poll at the top of the thread. Those that have been there largely think it's fine. Those who haven't, and in my opinion, whose opinions matter less, largely don't think it's fine. Ergo, it's fine.

[paulthemapguy]

Not sure why you had to berate me for my response. It made enough sense. It wouldn't be the first time a state has been used on a control city to give people a general idea where said direction of a highway is headed.

My main point was not the discussion of the topic at hand.  The most important question I have is: Why did you have to berate me and insult me for my response?

[Scott5114]

Not sure why you had to berate me for my response. It made enough sense. It wouldn't be the first time a state has been used on a control city to give people a general idea where said direction of a highway is headed.

My main point was not the discussion of the topic at hand.  The most important question I have is: Why did you have to berate me and insult me for my response?

You find it insulting when other people disagree with your responses?

[Flint1979]

When it comes to signs for westbound I-70 in Kansas, I'd even prefer "Colorado" used as a control city over Limon.  It's like having "Pulleys Mill" as a control city along I-24 west of Paducah. No one. is going there.

With the direction that I-24 travels in Illinois I think the control city should be Marion rather than Interstate 57.

[thspfc]

For all discussion on this topic, I will refer everyone again to the poll at the top of the thread. Those that have been there largely think it's fine. Those who haven't, and in my opinion, whose opinions matter less, largely don't think it's fine. Ergo, it's fine.

Is that all you've got?

[Roadgeekteen]

I think we have to distinguish whether we are talking about eastbound or westbound. In know in Kansas on I-70 east, the mileage signs switch of between using Limon and using Denver, but I heard that the use of Limon is being phased out.

[thspfc]

I think we have to distinguish whether we are talking about eastbound or westbound. In know in Kansas on I-70 east, the mileage signs switch of between using Limon and using Denver, but I heard that the use of Limon is being phased out.

It's ridiculous either way, but dumber westbound than eastbound.

[JayhawkCO]

For all discussion on this topic, I will refer everyone again to the poll at the top of the thread. Those that have been there largely think it's fine. Those who haven't, and in my opinion, whose opinions matter less, largely don't think it's fine. Ergo, it's fine.

Is that all you've got?

No. I've argued my point ad nauseam, but the fact remains that those who have actually been to the location in question think differently than "armchair drivers", especially those who have spent very little time in the West and are used to 30k person cities every 50 miles at most.

[J N Winkler]

No. I've argued my point ad nauseam, but the fact remains that those who have actually been to the location in question think differently than "armchair drivers", especially those who have spent very little time in the West and are used to 30k person cities every 50 miles at most.

I just voted against Limon and I have actually been to it multiple times, so to some degree the result of this poll will be contingent on people getting around to it.

This said, I see much potential for cycling back and forth because Limon as control city is really an edge case.  It is within the area of influence of Denver, which is a far more significant destination, but its also being where US 24 splits off for Colorado Springs is a persuasive (though not, in my personal view, compelling) argument for control city status.

As for the status quo, AASHTO's Interstate control city list does still include Limon, but it has been dropped from recent signing in Kansas.  In terms of cities used on large-panel ramp signs (not used in Colorado) and the final line on post-interchange confirmation (mileage) signs, the progression now is Denver, Hays, Salina, Topeka, and Kansas City.

[kirbykart]

Dumb question, but how do you even pronounce this name? I'm going back and forth between an authentic Spanish pronunciation, and "LIME-in".

The latter.

Thank you.

[zachary_amaryllis]

When it comes to signs for westbound I-70 in Kansas, I'd even prefer "Colorado" used as a control city over Limon.  It's like having "Pulleys Mill" as a control city along I-24 west of Paducah. No one. is going there.

Maybe you could put "America" to guarantee that the control city matches where 100% of people are going.

What if I'm driving to Canada or Mexico though?

Damn, you got me. Better make it "Earth".

What if you're driving to the spaceport about to depart the planet?

[formulanone]

When it comes to signs for westbound I-70 in Kansas, I'd even prefer "Colorado" used as a control city over Limon.  It's like having "Pulleys Mill" as a control city along I-24 west of Paducah. No one. is going there.

Maybe you could put "America" to guarantee that the control city matches where 100% of people are going.

What if I'm driving to Canada or Mexico though?

Damn, you got me. Better make it "Earth".

What if you're driving to the spaceport about to depart the planet?

I believe one calls them "dispensaries" and you don't even have to leave your state.

[DenverBrian]

Dumb question, but how do you even pronounce this name? I'm going back and forth between an authentic Spanish pronunciation, and "LIME-in".

The latter.

Thank you.

More specifically, LIME-un.

Interestingly, Control City Freak incorrectly pronounces Salina, UT, as the same as Salina, KS. They are pronounced differently. It's Sah-LEEN-uh, Utah, and Sah-LINE-uh, Kansas.

[thspfc]

For all discussion on this topic, I will refer everyone again to the poll at the top of the thread. Those that have been there largely think it's fine. Those who haven't, and in my opinion, whose opinions matter less, largely don't think it's fine. Ergo, it's fine.

Is that all you've got?

No. I've argued my point ad nauseam, but the fact remains that those who have actually been to the location in question think differently than "armchair drivers", especially those who have spent very little time in the West and are used to 30k person cities every 50 miles at most.

While never having been through Limon, I've spent plenty of time in the Plains and Rockies - Colorado specifically where I've been just about everywhere except the southeast quadrant.

Kansas City is probably 6 or 7 tiers above Limon for every criteria you can think of. And people
actually have an idea of where it is.

What is it about Limon that you need to see in person? It's a small highway stop town, one of hundreds of its kind in the US. How is visiting (which I eventually will) going to convince me it should be a control city?

Really, I don't think you've got anything here besides calling other people inexperienced. And it's fair to point out that you've been there while many haven't. But you can't just say "expierence"  and end it there.

[Scott5114]

What is it about Limon that you need to see in person? It's a small highway stop town, one of hundreds of its kind in the US. How is visiting (which I eventually will) going to convince me it should be a control city?

It's not Limon you need to see in person, it's the empty spaces on either side of it.

[thspfc]

What is it about Limon that you need to see in person? It's a small highway stop town, one of hundreds of its kind in the US. How is visiting (which I eventually will) going to convince me it should be a control city?

It's not Limon you need to see in person, it's the empty spaces on either side of it.

I know. I've been across Nebraska and Wyoming on I-80 and eastern CO on I-76.

[NWI_Irish96]

I don't understand how one could say with a straight face that Limon is a better fit because it's a major junction or whatever, while ignoring that KC is like 50x the highway junction that Limon is.

I can say it with a straight face because I can get to Limon before I need gas/food/hotel and I can't get to KC.

Why does that matter? How does putting Limon on a sign help you find gas/food/hotels as a traveler on I-70 in Denver?

Are there not like 30 other places to stop for gas/food/hotel between Denver and KC?

Limon is also only 90 miles away from Denver. How does "Limon" tell you that gas/food/hotels are 90 miles away (which, they aren't; by your logic Aurora should be signed along I-70 EB in Denver. Or even every exit that has those things).

If you want to say that KC is too far, that's at least a valid point. I disagree because I think more than one factor should be considered in posting control cities. But saying that Limon should be a control city because it has gas, food, and hotels is nonsense because KC has all of those things 50 times over.

Yes, KC is too far. Maybe 90 miles isn't ideal. Is there anyplace in the 100-200 mile range that has equal/better services?

[JayhawkCO]

While never having been through Limon, I've spent plenty of time in the Plains and Rockies - Colorado specifically where I've been just about everywhere except the southeast quadrant.

Kansas City is probably 6 or 7 tiers above Limon for every criteria you can think of. And people
actually have an idea of where it is.

I mean, St. Louis and Baltimore both have larger metro areas than Kansas City. At what point do we not concern ourselves with population as the 100% rule for where a highway points to?

What is it about Limon that you need to see in person? It's a small highway stop town, one of hundreds of its kind in the US. How is visiting (which I eventually will) going to convince me it should be a control city?

Really, I don't think you've got anything here besides calling other people inexperienced. And it's fair to point out that you've been there while many haven't. But you can't just say "expierence"  and end it there.

Basically it's the only place within 80 miles where you can even get your car worked on if you have an issue. Having had my wife's car have issues on both directions of a Denver-KC trip here recently (at Salina and Colby respectively), I can appreciate how much this matters more than most. Had we been somewhere even less populated than those cities, we would have been SOL even trying to find an auto parts store much less a mechanic to look at it. I think control cities should be a mixture of a directional aid as well as a service locator, which again matters a great deal more in the West than it does east of the Mississippi where there are services everywhere.

I'd maybe be fine if they wanted to remove Limon and maybe use Hays instead, but going straight to Kansas City which is 600 miles away is far too distant. It would be like the western version of I-95 signing Miami in Petersburg.

[hbelkins]

There really needs to be a Sprite bottling plant at Limon.

Does anyone remember the AAA TripTik strip maps? Limon had a special significance on the I-70 strip map for that area. US 24 was a highlighted route with a set of mileage figures from wherever the easternmost point was on that map (and to be truthful, I can't remember where it was). There was mileage to Denver via I-70, and also mileage to Colorado Springs via I-70 and US 24. And guess where the decision point was?

Limon makes more sense than Lewisburg for I-64 in West Virginia, or most of those towns used along I-80 in Pennsylvania.

[hotdogPi]

I'm apparently not qualified to give an opinion eastbound. However, it makes absolutely no sense westbound. Unlike its eastbound counterpart, Denver is just slightly farther, and it's a major city. Those going to Colorado Springs would probably want to see Colorado Springs (supplementary, so as not to remove Denver), not Limon.

While a control state of Colorado wouldn't be too bad (I-70 west is also the way to Pueblo, Fort Collins, and Grand Junction, which covers pretty much the entire state), I would prefer Denver over Colorado.

[JayhawkCO]

I'm apparently not qualified to give an opinion eastbound. However, it makes absolutely no sense westbound. Unlike its eastbound counterpart, Denver is just slightly farther, and it's a major city. Those going to Colorado Springs would probably want to see Colorado Springs (supplementary, so as not to remove Denver), not Limon.

While a control state of Colorado wouldn't be too bad (I-70 west is also the way to Pueblo, Fort Collins, and Grand Junction, which covers pretty much the entire state), I would prefer Denver over Colorado.

I'm not saying people aren't qualified if they haven't been here. I'm saying those that travel this route often have a different point of reference than those who just look at a map and population table. It's no different than looking at the Fictional forum where people say "hey, there should be an interstate that goes diagonally between Denver and Oklahoma City" irrespective of the fact that no one lives there and building the quickest way would miss which little towns there are, therefore a) not being useful and b) if you routed to actually serve those cities, you wouldn't save any time compared to existing interstates.

Some situations have nuance, and it's way easier to see that nuance from personal experience than it is from 1,000 miles away. Not everything is black and white.

[J N Winkler]

I mean, St. Louis and Baltimore both have larger metro areas than Kansas City. At what point do we not concern ourselves with population as the 100% rule for where a highway points to?

It's not a question of crossing a threshold so much as making a judgment on the basis of various factors, of which population is just one among importance as a junction point, the extent to which the location functions as a business service center for the surrounding area, and so on.

Basically it's the only place within 80 miles where you can even get your car worked on if you have an issue. Having had my wife's car have issues on both directions of a Denver-KC trip here recently (at Salina and Colby respectively), I can appreciate how much this matters more than most. Had we been somewhere even less populated than those cities, we would have been SOL even trying to find an auto parts store much less a mechanic to look at it. I think control cities should be a mixture of a directional aid as well as a service locator, which again matters a great deal more in the West than it does east of the Mississippi where there are services everywhere.

I'd maybe be fine if they wanted to remove Limon and maybe use Hays instead, but going straight to Kansas City which is 600 miles away is far too distant. It would be like the western version of I-95 signing Miami in Petersburg.

Agreed--Kansas City is too distant.  FWIW, in terms of population (and with the proviso that this is not the only criterion for control-city status), Limon has less than one-tenth that of Hays, and is in roughly the same size class as Burlington, Colby, WaKeeney, and Russell, none of which has had control city status in a signing scheme Colorado or Kansas has used in any recent decade.

(Side note:  I've not had much luck Googling for a picture of John Limon, the railroad supervisor who is apparently the town's namesake.)

[thspfc]

I don't understand how one could say with a straight face that Limon is a better fit because it's a major junction or whatever, while ignoring that KC is like 50x the highway junction that Limon is.

I can say it with a straight face because I can get to Limon before I need gas/food/hotel and I can't get to KC.

Why does that matter? How does putting Limon on a sign help you find gas/food/hotels as a traveler on I-70 in Denver?

Are there not like 30 other places to stop for gas/food/hotel between Denver and KC?

Limon is also only 90 miles away from Denver. How does "Limon" tell you that gas/food/hotels are 90 miles away (which, they aren't; by your logic Aurora should be signed along I-70 EB in Denver. Or even every exit that has those things).

If you want to say that KC is too far, that's at least a valid point. I disagree because I think more than one factor should be considered in posting control cities. But saying that Limon should be a control city because it has gas, food, and hotels is nonsense because KC has all of those things 50 times over.

Yes, KC is too far. Maybe 90 miles isn't ideal. Is there anyplace in the 100-200 mile range that has equal/better services?

But again, how does signing a largely unknown town 90 or 100 or 200 miles away help anyone? How does "Limon" indicate that there's amenities 90 miles in that direction?

[NWI_Irish96]

I don't understand how one could say with a straight face that Limon is a better fit because it's a major junction or whatever, while ignoring that KC is like 50x the highway junction that Limon is.

I can say it with a straight face because I can get to Limon before I need gas/food/hotel and I can't get to KC.

Why does that matter? How does putting Limon on a sign help you find gas/food/hotels as a traveler on I-70 in Denver?

Are there not like 30 other places to stop for gas/food/hotel between Denver and KC?

Limon is also only 90 miles away from Denver. How does "Limon" tell you that gas/food/hotels are 90 miles away (which, they aren't; by your logic Aurora should be signed along I-70 EB in Denver. Or even every exit that has those things).

If you want to say that KC is too far, that's at least a valid point. I disagree because I think more than one factor should be considered in posting control cities. But saying that Limon should be a control city because it has gas, food, and hotels is nonsense because KC has all of those things 50 times over.

Yes, KC is too far. Maybe 90 miles isn't ideal. Is there anyplace in the 100-200 mile range that has equal/better services?

But again, how does signing a largely unknown town 90 or 100 or 200 miles away help anyone? How does "Limon" indicate that there's amenities 90 miles in that direction?

Being a control city implies that there are amenities and the mileage signs will indicate the distance.

Being a largely unknown town isn't ideal but there aren't any known towns within a couple hours drive.

Signing only a city that's 600 miles away doesn't work, so I'd like to know what your alternative is.