Indirect control cities

[huskeroadgeek]

Two of I-40's control cities in Arkansas are Little Rock and Ft Smith.  I-40 goes through neither city.

Well, it goes close enough, doesn't it?  Through suburbs?  If you're in Memphis, I think "Little Rock" is a reasonable descriptor of where 40 west goes.  (And probably matches what most people are doing.)  American control-city practices are pretty weird and inconsistent.  In France, for example, if you're heading toward Paris, even if the road you're on will end 200 km out of Paris and dump you onto another road to continue that direction, you'll get "Paris" among a generous list of destinations.  (The criticism I'd have there is that they often give too many destinations to read.)

For the French example you gave, it isn't that much different than many examples in the US. It's like Memphis being signed on I-57 in Illinois despite the fact it ends long before it reaches Memphis. Or New York being signed on I-80 even though I-80 ends just before it reaches New York. I guess I don't see that American control cit"y practices are that weird and inconsistent.

New Jersey will choose small, in-state points rather than larger cities out of state (For I-78 west, from Newark, it used to be...drum roll..."Clinton."  Now it's Phillipsburg or "Easton Pa")  In Pennsylvania, you don't in fact see New York" for I-80 east, but a succession of fairly small in-state places.  Hence my use of the word "weird."  Maryland gives "New York" for I-95 north, then you cross into Delaware and "New York" disappears in favor of "Wilmington, Philadelphia."  Hence my use of the word "inconsistent."  And how 'bout "Philadelphia, New York"?  Philadelphia's actually quite a large city....

I'm aware that Illinois (and lots of non-East-Coast states) goes to the other extreme.  Hence, again, "inconsistency."  If we could get into the habit of showing two or three destinations for every direction on an Interstate, perhaps a small but local place, and a major city or two that are farther down....

A French example:  http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=69  (top photo)

This would be about here, if the link works right (computer's giving me trouble), heading southeast.  Zoom out to see where the cities are.... http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.037608,4.85424&spn=0.052295,0.109692&z=13

EDIT:  Check out the same interchange from the other direction, although this borders on being an example of "too much"  http://franceautoroutes.free.fr/photospoint.php?route=a6&pos=70 (bottom photo)  Lille in particular is about 400 miles from there, using a sequence of about 4 different numbered "autoroutes" (A31, A5, A26, A1 is the best route I can think of from that point.  On reflection, I think the reason they've got Lille - the largest city in northern France, north of Paris - on that sign is to say "for Lille (and thus the north), go this way rather than through the Paris area.")

I do see what you mean about inconsistencies because each state chooses its own way to sign control cities whether smaller, nearby cities or larger more distant cities. Personally though, I prefer less cities than more on signs. There may be some exceptions where 3 makes sense, but in most cases I don't see a need for any more than two control cities on any one sign. 4 just seems like information overload.

[TheStranger]

But I think the biggest indirect control city in that area is I-95 / BOSTON.  I-95 NB motorists have to switch to I-93 NB in Dedham, while I-95 SB motorists switch to US 1 in Peabody.

Both are still only one-route switches so they are not overly indirect; 95 after all was intended to go through town until the 1970s.  (Same deal for 95 being signed for Washington DC)

[agentsteel53]

in that area, the most oddly indirect control city is "NH-Maine" on I-495.  495 goes to neither, and of course two states don't make a city.  I think they expect you to return to I-95 and head north.

[OracleUsr]

I-395 in Bangor, ME, is signed as its secondary control cities "Bar Harbor Region" and "Calais"

US 1, the coastal highway, doesn't go to Bar Harbor.  ME 3 from Ellsworth does.


Also, in Raleigh, I-40 is signed as going to Wilmington, but I-40 ends just northwest of Wrightsville Beach, not quite Wilmington.

Also, I remember at one time I-85 in Durham was signed for "Richmond," which is not even close.  Downtown Richmond is almost 25 miles from Capitol Heights/Petersburg, I-85's northern terminus.  I think now it's signed as Petersburg.

I-385 is signed south from I-85 in Greenville as "Columbia," but I-385 ends in Clinton, almost 50 miles north.  You take I-26 from Clinton to Columbia.

[TheStranger]

in that area, the most oddly indirect control city is "NH-Maine" on I-495.  495 goes to neither, and of course two states don't make a city.  I think they expect you to return to I-95 and head north.

Yeah, I think it's the long-range bypass control city philosophy, which IIRC I-285 in Atlanta and I-294 in Chicagoland tend to copy (the latter more strongly, as states tend to be used as control destinations more often there).

If California used that system more often, I-210 would be signed for Phoenix!  However, I CAN think of three examples where this is followed:

I-405 for Sacramento and San Diego
I-805 for Los Angeles (which is interesting as Santa Ana is the primary control city on 5 north for a few miles, too)
former I-880 in Sacramento, now I-80, for Reno and San Francisco

If CalTrans used this more often, I-210 would have the control cities of Ventura and Phoenix!

[agentsteel53]

If California used that system more often, I-210 would be signed for Phoenix!

you mean "other desert cities"

[TheStranger]

If California used that system more often, I-210 would be signed for Phoenix!

you mean "other desert cities"

True.  After San Bernardino, Redlands is the control city, right?  (I've driven old 66 in that area, but not new 210)

[national highway 1]

Wouldn't 210 be signed for the next 10 east control point, 'Indio' or 'Palm Springs'?

[TheStranger]

Wouldn't 210 be signed for the next 10 east control point, 'Indio' or 'Palm Springs'?

It isn't:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=San+Bernardino,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.368578,55.898438&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=San+Bernardino,+California&ll=34.137987,-117.326088&spn=0.00468,0.006824&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.137559,-117.326594&panoid=HnBPtMskDl12cYnQrlz9NA&cbp=12,51.12,,0,6.27 "Redlands/Mountain Resorts" at I-215

"Redlands" at Route 330 (don't know if this section of freeway has received 210 signs now though) -
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=San+Bernardino,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.368578,55.898438&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=San+Bernardino,+California&ll=34.131558,-117.209573&spn=0.00936,0.013647&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.131593,-117.209779&panoid=x5x-6H7-fhBJKK3SKA1mjg&cbp=12,101.08,,2,-9.97

Westbound, 210 doesn't receive signage for I-5 control cities until after Route 118.

"San Fernando" at the 210/134 split:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pasadena,+CA&sll=34.131593,-117.209787&sspn=0.00936,0.013647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pasadena,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.152008,-118.142928&spn=0.004644,0.006824&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=34.152011,-118.143059&panoid=rlz_cpp7QNTB08eYD-oHew&cbp=12,262.44,,0,-5.8

"San Fernando" again at Route 2:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pasadena,+CA&sll=34.131593,-117.209787&sspn=0.00936,0.013647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pasadena,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.205343,-118.213105&spn=0.018704,0.027294&z=15&layer=c&cbll=34.207092,-118.208525&panoid=ETdykFh0tbkp0Ub0u6-UEQ&cbp=12,288.69,,0,6.13

And at Route 118, still "San Fernando" even though that interchange is practically there!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pasadena,+CA&sll=34.131593,-117.209787&sspn=0.00936,0.013647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pasadena,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.282379,-118.401332&spn=0.009344,0.013647&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.282488,-118.401455&panoid=LP62-5fQrGmWNGoiDBMP3g&cbp=12,332.94,,0,6.56

[UptownRoadGeek]

Well I-55 and I-59 are both signed to New Orleans, but both require you to utilize the I-10 to actually get there. New Orleans is also known for have many indirect street exits, requiring you to turn onto 1 or more surface streets after you exit before you actually get to the street signed at the exit.

[sandiaman]

  Seen in Albuquerque on I-25, control city  south is listed as El Paso, which is  44 miles south of Las  Cruces , where  I-25  terminates.  Although,  I -25  multiplexed with I -10  into El Paso  .many,many moons ago.

[agentsteel53]

really??  I never knew that.  So there was once such a thing as Texas I-25?

here I had thought that one of the design goals of the interstate system was to avoid precisely those sorts of multiplexes, as they were deemed a confusing aspect of the US route system.

[TheStranger]

really??  I never knew that.  So there was once such a thing as Texas I-25?

here I had thought that one of the design goals of the interstate system was to avoid precisely those sorts of multiplexes, as they were deemed a confusing aspect of the US route system.

The post above yours is the very first time I've seen any mention of this, ever.

Now, we DO know US 85 was concurrent down to El Paso, of course New Mexico no longer acknowledges that highway, but Texas still does...

[huskeroadgeek]

  Seen in Albuquerque on I-25, control city  south is listed as El Paso, which is  44 miles south of Las  Cruces , where  I-25  terminates.  Although,  I -25  multiplexed with I -10  into El Paso  .many,many moons ago.

Have they changed that recently? Last I knew, I-25 South in Albuquerque was signed for Las Cruces.

[sandiaman]

On one of the  old H.M. Gousha  maps from the early 1960s, I-25 is multiplexed with  I-10  between Las Cruces and El Paso, which would   have been  technically Texas I-25.  I have never seen it anywhere  else, and I   think it would have been redundant.  It could be a mistake also.

[agentsteel53]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was just a Gousha error - they inferred a 10/25 multiplex from the existence of 80/85.

[Bickendan]

Of course, the only justification I can think of for a TX I-25 is if I-25 had crossed into Jaurez on what is now I-110...

[Scott5114]

Hmm. Is there a version of the Yellow Book with route numbers included? They might well have had such a setup very early on in planning before saying "Wait, no, that's stupid. Make it 110 instead".

[TheStranger]

Hmm. Is there a version of the Yellow Book with route numbers included? They might well have had such a setup very early on in planning before saying "Wait, no, that's stupid. Make it 110 instead".

I actually wouldn't think so - prior to 1957, California's Division of Highways had some very strange route numbering proposals that in no way resemble the use of 3dis/Interstate grid today, i.e. 2di numbers for short routes in metro LA, and IIRC I-110 for what became the Embarcadero Freeway.

Closest thing I can think of would be that route numbering map proposal from 1956 or so, but that was well after the Yellow book.

[Scott5114]

Right, and that wouldn't show the detail that once would need for this...

[Revive 755]

* US 67 uses St. Louis in southern Missouri, but access to St. Louis requires getting on I-55 first:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=36.841816,-90.50138&spn=0.012982,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=36.841759,-90.500852&panoid=8EsHzlp15hV1afMVwrNv-Q&cbp=12,59.62,,0,-42.34

* US 67 in Alton, IL also uses St. Louis, even entering the city requires using MO 367:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.888152,-90.173528&spn=0.006347,0.020599&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.888166,-90.173608&panoid=Xqb1Yc0Y-rfXpmNupHJphQ&cbp=12,90.86,,0,-5.83
It almost better to stay on the IL side here and access St. Louis via IL 143 and the IL 3/McKinley Bridge corridor - signalized expressways, but much better than the petering out the MO 367 corridor does south of I-270.

* The MO 21 Blood Alley Replacement Freeway uses St. Louis also, but MO 21 never enters the city.  Accessing St. Louis requires either somehow accessing I-55 or continuing in on MO 30
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.22473,-90.580022&spn=0.012811,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.224581,-90.580589&panoid=DWJonP2KebFwJlJz4CTwaA&cbp=12,74.17,,0,6.17

* MO 364 uses St. Louis as a control city, but accessing St. Louis requires uses Route D (granted the latter could easily be renumbered to fix this)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.707113,-90.502195&spn=0.012726,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.707281,-90.50217&panoid=R7--XcKtNjOIG07WMCfkyQ&cbp=12,202.33,,0,7.2

* MO 370 occasionally uses St. Louis as a control city, but it is not even a semi-direct route into the city:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.790911,-90.45367&spn=0.012711,0.041199&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.790911,-90.45367&panoid=Dweo9YSHKW5ESO03z_SXPg&cbp=12,94.24,,0,5.19

Really should use "To I-270" here or or use another indirect choice like "Indianapolis" to indicate the bypass function of MO 370

[Scott5114]

Just north of OK-74B, OK-74 has a mileage sign listing the distance to Norman and Oklahoma City. Since 1967, OK-74 has been split in two and ends at I-35. The route picks up again on the north side of Oklahoma City, but to reach either Norman or OKC from the sign, I-35 must be used.

[MDOTFanFB]

Lansing, MI, on I-69 and I-96, you have to take I-496 to enter the city limits of that city.

Grand Rapids, MI, on I-96, you have to take I-196 or U.S. 131 for that.

Muskegon, MI on I-96, that city is well past the western terminus of I-96.

MI I-275's only control cities are Flint and Toledo, OH, you have to take I-75 to reach either city.

I-696's only contol cities are Lansing and Port Huron. For Lansing, see above, for Port Huron, you must take I-94.

Flint, MI, on I-75, must take I-475 or I-69 to be in the limits of that city.

[InterstateNG]

I'd say this qualifies:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Grande+Prairie,+Alberta,+Canada&aq=0&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.043149,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Grande+Prairie,+Division+No.+19,+Alberta,+Canada&ll=55.171571,-118.820668&spn=0.00435,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=55.171915,-118.820688&panoid=vc6Bvee0rUByvASRiHh6Rw&cbp=12,174.74,,0,-0.51

[tdindy88]

Lansing, MI, on I-69 and I-96, you have to take I-496 to enter the city limits of that city.

Grand Rapids, MI, on I-96, you have to take I-196 or U.S. 131 for that.

Muskegon, MI on I-96, that city is well past the western terminus of I-96.

MI I-275's only control cities are Flint and Toledo, OH, you have to take I-75 to reach either city.

I-696's only contol cities are Lansing and Port Huron. For Lansing, see above, for Port Huron, you must take I-94.

Flint, MI, on I-75, must take I-475 or I-69 to be in the limits of that city.

Checking a map, I saw that I-96 does go into the boudaries of Grand Rapids, for a very short distance, but still, in the case of Grand Rapids, I-69 and 96 in Lansing, and I-75 with Flint, the fact that those highways do go into the main metro area of those cities should be good enough, missing the city's corporation limit by a mile or so shouldn't be condition on determining control cities (or else INDOT should just put Flint up on signs north of Ft. Wayne). Now, the I-275 example is more what I think of when I think of this topic, or any of the 3-dis in Ohio, but that's just my opinion.