Indirect control cities

[Dirt Roads]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[cwf1701]

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/

[pianocello]

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.

[LilianaUwU]

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.

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Some one]

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.

[hobsini2]

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[Flint1979]

There is no rule that a control city has to be reached before the control city is changed.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[SkyPesos]

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.

[ran4sh]

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.

[ran4sh]

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.

[SkyPesos]

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?

[Flint1979]

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

[Flint1979]

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.

[Flint1979]

Each state chooses the control cities that they use so they can use anything they want in reality.

[ran4sh]

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.

[ran4sh]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[ran4sh]

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!"

[ran4sh]

In any case, the forum users that disagree with me are hypocrites if they support the use of St Louis for I-24.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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

Support:
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. 

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.