Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[The Nature Boy]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

[amroad17]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal.  There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands.  Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.

It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either.  Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).

[roadman65]

Located on I-40 WB in Benson, NC.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpghttps://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg
These should be Fayetteville and Wilson ( or Rocky Mount). Benson is the place this intersection is located and Smithfield is the county seat of Johnston County where this junction is located.

This is how you sign a local highway from an interstate. Not a long distance interstate like I-95.

[ran4sh]

Assuming that it really is the westbound (and not eastbound) sign, it would be mostly local traffic exiting to I-95 at this point anyway. Traffic from, say, Wilmington, if they were going north on I-95, would have used I-795, and if going south on I-95, would have used US 74.

But I agree that those are not good choices for control cities.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/UJR4MAHZBP557dL17
EB even uses Benson, which was surpassed by the previous exit. However Rocky Mount is used here instead of Smithfield.   Here you get a lot heading south along I-95, so Fayetteville is more suitable.

[Flint1979]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

I don't think I'd want to see Toronto there. Most of the traffic there is heading toward the bridge so Canada works fine but if a city should be used it should be Toledo. Like I said before using Canada makes you think that you are heading to the border without a chance to remain in the USA. They do have signs in yellow and black lettering that says NO REENTRY TO USA.

[Flint1979]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal.  There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands.  Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.

It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either.  Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).

Once you get across the border and into Windsor you take 401 to Toronto so it's not as out of the way to get to that highway as you would think. But yes once the GHB is opened it will be a direct connection without having to travel through city streets in Windsor to get to 401 which is how you currently have to do it with the Ambassador Bridge.

In Canada's case at least going into Michigan they have larger cities at the border crossings such as Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie so using those cities makes sense for them. But yeah Bridge to USA is used or Tunnel to USA in the case of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.

They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the I-96 interchange on I-94 but once your at the interchange it's shortened to just Canada.

[Flint1979]

Located on I-40 WB in Benson, NC.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpghttps://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg
These should be Fayetteville and Wilson ( or Rocky Mount). Benson is the place this intersection is located and Smithfield is the county seat of Johnston County where this junction is located.

This is how you sign a local highway from an interstate. Not a long distance interstate like I-95.

IMO it should be Fayetteville for SB and Richmond, VA for NB.

[The Nature Boy]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal.  There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands.  Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.

It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either.  Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).

It wouldn't be the first control city to not have a direct route. I-84 doesn't go to Boston, I-80 doesn't go to NYC, and I-40 and I-15 don't go to Los Angeles but if you're a driver who needs to know how to get somewhere, those signs are helpful for getting you there.

Detroit to Toronto/Montreal is as direct as any of the routes I mentioned above, it's a straight drive up Highway 401 (which you pickup just south of Windsor).

[TEG24601]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal.  There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands.  Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.

It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either.  Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).

Once you get across the border and into Windsor you take 401 to Toronto so it's not as out of the way to get to that highway as you would think. But yes once the GHB is opened it will be a direct connection without having to travel through city streets in Windsor to get to 401 which is how you currently have to do it with the Ambassador Bridge.

In Canada's case at least going into Michigan they have larger cities at the border crossings such as Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie so using those cities makes sense for them. But yeah Bridge to USA is used or Tunnel to USA in the case of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.

They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the I-96 interchange on I-94 but once your at the interchange it's shortened to just Canada.

Washington signs I-5 North as "Vancouver B.C", and last time I was in BC, BC-99 South was signed "USA Border" and/or "Peace Arch".  I always thought that "Toronto, ON" would have been a great Control City for all 3 Interstates that head to Ontario, rather than just "Canada".  Perhaps with the New Bridge being directly connect to KH-401, which is a direct shot to Toronto, MDOT might consider signing the connections to it as "Toronto, ON".

[mgk920]

Howabout something in the Detroit area being signed with 'Windsor/Toronto' as the control?

Mike

[tmoore952]

In my drives around the international border (Detroiit, Buffalo, and many places east of the Great Lakes, "Canada" by itself did not make me think I was going to Canada wo any other option ---  it was more like "Canada ONLY".

Likewise in places in Quebec north of the border but close to it, I remember seeing local intersections where "USA" was used as a control point, but going that way did not mean you were exclusively going to USA. If "ONLY" was added, that was a different story.

OTOH, I remember the signage on US 11 north of US 2 north of Rouses Point NY not being very clear on this. When I went that way, I almost immediately passed a building on the left (which apparently was US Customs but I did not think that). I very suddenly entered Canada (I remember there was an at-grade RR crossing there) and made a U-turn just north of the border (wo going to Canadian Customs), and then when I came back south, had to explain to the US Customs people what I had done. This was 1994 (pre-9/11 obviuosly) but it took about 15 minutes of explaining before they believed me.

[GaryV]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

I don't think I'd want to see Toronto there. Most of the traffic there is heading toward the bridge so Canada works fine but if a city should be used it should be Toledo. Like I said before using Canada makes you think that you are heading to the border without a chance to remain in the USA. They do have signs in yellow and black lettering that says NO REENTRY TO USA.

When people north of Saginaw see the control "city" of Mackinac Bridge, do they similarly assume that there's no exit between where they are and the Bridge?

The I-94 exit to I-96 shouldn't use "DOWNTOWN" as a control city because it doesn't go to downtown. If you were traveling EB on I-94, it would make more sense to stay on 94 and then take the Lodge to downtown - because even if you took I-96 eb to I-75 nb, you'd still have to get onto the Lodge to go downtown. If you were WB, you already passed downtown.

EDIT: As far as signing it for Toledo, if you're coming wb on I-94 you'd have already taken I-75. If you were coming eb on I-94, it probably would have made more sense to go the opposite way to the Southfield or to I-275 - not heading further into Detroit before heading back sw to Toledo.

[Flint1979]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

At the I-87/A-15 and the I-89/QC 133 (Future A-35) crossings, Montreal is the correct control city to sign as both A-15 and QC 133 (along with the completed portion of A-35) provide a direct route from the USA to Montreal.  There is not a direct route to Toronto or Ottawa from any of the major crossings in Detroit, Port Huron, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, or Thousand Islands.  Connections between routes have to be made to get to Toronto or Ottawa, save the future Gordie Howe Bridge crossing which would be a direct route to Toronto from I-75 in Detroit.

It does not appear that Canada signs any particular USA 🇺🇸 control cities either.  Usually the signs read "Bridge to USA" or a plain "USA", except for one on the QEW that is signed "Buffalo" (top line) "USA" (bottom line).

Once you get across the border and into Windsor you take 401 to Toronto so it's not as out of the way to get to that highway as you would think. But yes once the GHB is opened it will be a direct connection without having to travel through city streets in Windsor to get to 401 which is how you currently have to do it with the Ambassador Bridge.

In Canada's case at least going into Michigan they have larger cities at the border crossings such as Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie so using those cities makes sense for them. But yeah Bridge to USA is used or Tunnel to USA in the case of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel.

They use Bridge to Canada on the signs leading up to the I-96 interchange on I-94 but once your at the interchange it's shortened to just Canada.

Washington signs I-5 North as "Vancouver B.C", and last time I was in BC, BC-99 South was signed "USA Border" and/or "Peace Arch".  I always thought that "Toronto, ON" would have been a great Control City for all 3 Interstates that head to Ontario, rather than just "Canada".  Perhaps with the New Bridge being directly connect to KH-401, which is a direct shot to Toronto, MDOT might consider signing the connections to it as "Toronto, ON".

MDOT will just use Bridge to Canada like they always have.

[Flint1979]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

I don't think I'd want to see Toronto there. Most of the traffic there is heading toward the bridge so Canada works fine but if a city should be used it should be Toledo. Like I said before using Canada makes you think that you are heading to the border without a chance to remain in the USA. They do have signs in yellow and black lettering that says NO REENTRY TO USA.

When people north of Saginaw see the control "city" of Mackinac Bridge, do they similarly assume that there's no exit between where they are and the Bridge?

The I-94 exit to I-96 shouldn't use "DOWNTOWN" as a control city because it doesn't go to downtown. If you were traveling EB on I-94, it would make more sense to stay on 94 and then take the Lodge to downtown - because even if you took I-96 eb to I-75 nb, you'd still have to get onto the Lodge to go downtown. If you were WB, you already passed downtown.

EDIT: As far as signing it for Toledo, if you're coming wb on I-94 you'd have already taken I-75. If you were coming eb on I-94, it probably would have made more sense to go the opposite way to the Southfield or to I-275 - not heading further into Detroit before heading back sw to Toledo.

No, why would they? Crossing the Mackinac Bridge by mistake is a lot different than crossing the Ambassador Bridge by mistake.

It doesn't matter what freeway you use to get downtown. Downtown Detroit is a control city on I-96 already so using that does make sense.

You don't necessarily have to use I-75 to get to the freeway that takes you to Toledo even with that freeway being I-75, you could use the Lodge to get to the Fisher south, you could also use the Jeffries and I-275, you could even use US-23 if you wanted to.

The control city on NB I-75 north of Saginaw should be Sault Ste. Marie screw it I made up my mind and think that should be the control city instead of Mackinac Bridge and Saginaw should be the control city starting in Sault Ste. Marie.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Located on I-40 WB in Benson, NC.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpghttps://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52020193680_b8decf24a6_c.jpg
These should be Fayetteville and Wilson ( or Rocky Mount). Benson is the place this intersection is located and Smithfield is the county seat of Johnston County where this junction is located.

This is how you sign a local highway from an interstate. Not a long distance interstate like I-95.

IMO it should be Fayetteville for SB and Richmond, VA for NB.

I'd rather use Petersburg instead of Richmond at that point since it's the next major interstate-to-interstate junction on I-95. Southbound should be Fayetteville since you're basically already IN Benson at this point.

[jt4]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.

[Flint1979]

After driving to Sault Ste. Marie today I figure that Saginaw to Sault Ste. Marie is quite a distance between two control cities. If you wanted to use a control city on I-75 in the northern lower peinisula Gaylord would probably be the best choice but that city is pretty small, exit 282 is a major interchange on I-75 though but still Mackinac Bridge works fine here. I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.

[The Nature Boy]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.

Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.

[Flint1979]

If Michigan has got to have one then I choose St. Ignace for SB I-75 in the U.P., why not just use Mackinac Bridge like NB I-75 in the lower peninsula? St. Ignace is pretty well known as the north end of the bridge though. But this is for Interstate's and Michigan does a pretty good job of choosing control cities on Interstate's and pretty much overall on the other systems of highways.

What about I-96 Eastbound in Detroit, The choice of Canada as a control city at the junction of I-94?

For the U.P./St. Ignace comment, I could see Mackinac Bridge used, however, the U.P. has its own vibe.  Many residents probably don't care if the bridge, Saginaw, Flint, or Detroit is signed as a control city since they probably do not travel much over the bridge and further south (especially since Saginaw is around 210 miles from the south approach to the bridge).  They would more than likely prefer control cities that are in the U.P. signed on I-75, or on other highways such as US 2, US 41, or M-28.

For the I-96/Canada comment, the reason Canada 🇨🇦 is signed is that I-96 leads to the Ambassador Bridge crossing.  Is Windsor supposed to be signed instead?  Could be but this is one of the main crossings for motorists not just to go to Windsor.  This is also a way to get to Toronto, Ottawa, or Montreal along with the Port Huron-Sarnia crossing or the I-81/Thousand Islands crossing.  These crossings as well as the crossings in Buffalo and Niagara Falls all have Canada 🇨🇦 as a control point as these are gateways to visit Canada or to "cut through" Canada above Lake Erie instead of traveling below in the USA.

After typing this, I read what Flint1979 commented.  I would still sign I-96 for Canada because once I-96 interchanges with I-75, the I-75 controls  are posted and motorists can decide on their options there.  Could "TO I-75" be added to the I-96 sign to give a motorist the USA option?  It more than likely would help, I believe.

I would sign Toronto, similar how to NY signs Montreal on the Adirondack Northway. You could even sign Toronto AND Montreal at that point honestly.

It just seems too far away to sign Toronto (and definitely too far for Montreal). I think Canada or Ontario is more appropriate, even if long distance traffic is headed to Toronto.

Detroit to Toronto is only 230 miles, which is only ~10 miles farther apart than Albany and Montreal. 230 miles seems the right distance to be helpful to long distance traffic.

Why would MDOT use Toronto when Ontario doesn't even use Toronto once you are in Canada until you get to London? London is the control city on 401 going east of Windsor. Also NYSDOT and MDOT are two different agencies in two different states.

[Flint1979]

How does anyone here know exactly how much traffic crossing the border in Detroit and Port Huron are actually headed to Toronto? You don't think that some of that traffic has stops before Toronto and isn't heading to Toronto? Or how about traffic with enhanced drivers licenses crossing the border to take a short cut to get to Buffalo? Yes Toronto is the largest city in Canada and yes some of that traffic is heading there but not all of it.

[SkyPesos]

How does anyone here know exactly how much traffic crossing the border in Detroit and Port Huron are actually headed to Toronto? You don't think that some of that traffic has stops before Toronto and isn't heading to Toronto? Or how about traffic with enhanced drivers licenses crossing the border to take a short cut to get to Buffalo? Yes Toronto is the largest city in Canada and yes some of that traffic is heading there but not all of it.

Isn't that not all traffic on a road is heading to the control city common though? Like I-55 NB from Memphis is signed for St Louis (50 miles longer than Detroit to Toronto), but a good portion of long distance traffic leave I-55 to get on I-57 well before St Louis. Same with I-55 NB signing Chicago from St Louis; I-39 is a common veer-off mid-way. So in that case, signing Toronto from Detroit isn't too out of the ordinary.

[tmoore952]

I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.

To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.

The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.

[Flint1979]

I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.

To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.

The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.

They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.

[roadman65]

I just think that an actual city should be used more often when you can use one. One control city I hate is Delaware Water Gap on I-80 in PA.

To be clear, Delaware Water Gap is the name of a actual small town, it's the last town in PA as you go east. PA 611 goes through it. When you are there you are looking down at the I-80 bridge over the Delaware River.

The juxtaposition of the two sentences in what I quoted above --- makes me unsure if DWG is being viewed here as "just" a natural feature (which it also is) and not also a town, or if the problem is that it is not a big city (true). Or is the problem really that the control city isn't "New York City" to tie into a lot of other posts I have seen in these forums.

They are obviously not referring to the small town on the river when they use that they are referring to the actual water gap where I-80 goes into New Jersey.

Not according to the mileage sign ( yes there is one on I-80 near Hope, as NJ don't like usually don't like to erect them) where it reads Columbia 7 and Delaware Water Gap 11.  If it were the natural cut in the Kinatiny Mountain the difference between the two would be of 3 miles.

FYI, both Columbia and the Village of Delaware Water Gap are 4 miles apart.