Most Worthless Control Cities

[mrsman]

Personally, eastbound I would have NYC as the primary and State College, Hazleton and Stroudsburg as the secondaries.  Westbound, I would sign Cleveland as the primary from the George Washington Bridge with Patterson, Scranton, State College and Younstown as the secondaries.
I have always thought that secondaries do need to be signed with primaries at the very least on the mileage signs.

Williamsport should probably be mentioned westbound. It's kinda big and by Pennsylvania standards pretty big. Plus it's got it's own spur route. I'm fine with not signing it eastbound because I-99 will take you there. Wonder how Shuster feels about having his interstate criticized for having bad control cities. If he didn't choose Tyrone and Port Matilda as control cities, and didn't make it I-99, maybe his interstate would be better respected.

If you are talking about Cleveland, Ohio I think that's too far. Cleveland is 460 miles from the GWB and two states away, also I-80 never even enters Cleveland it comes closest at about 2 miles from the city limits and about 15 miles to downtown and then most people probably aren't headed to Cleveland from NYC.

But if you use Cleveland, people will realize that it is more of a gateway to the rest of the big metros on the Great Lakes. Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee bound traffic would have to bypass Cleveland. And besides, I-480 is the direct feed into the city.  That's why I would use it from the GWB.

In my opinion, I think State College/Scranton should be used out of NYC, then State College/Cleveland past I-380. Scranton, being one of PA's largest cities, should be on the bottom line on all mileage signs and pull-throughs until the junction with I-380. Then I don't really know from there, State College/Cleveland or State College/Youngstown?
[/quote]


Many of the PA choices aren't even good as secondaries.

Eastbound from Elyria, OH (90/80 split west of Cleveland): Youngstown/NYC, Sharon/NYC, Du Bois/NYC, State College/NYC, Hazleton/NYC, Stroudsburg/NYC, New York City

Westbound from I-95:  Paterson/Scranton, Parsippany/Scranton, Netcong/Scranton, Stroudsburg/Scranton, Scranton/Cleveland, Hazleton/Cleveland, State College/Cleveland, Du Bois/Cleveland, Sharon/Cleveland, Youngstown/Cleveland, Cleveland

Delaware Water Gap is a bad control since it can be confused with the state of Delaware on a wrong turn from NJTP.  It should be completely removed from signage except for the immediate exit into the town.

[Roadgeekteen]

US 24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne sticks out to me as for the control cities along it. I understand in Ohio the standard practice is to have the next county seat as the control city for US and State routes, so I get Napoleon and Defiance, OH being control cities. But going west past Defiance, Antwerp, OH becomes the control city in Ohio.

And in Fort Wayne, US 24 has no control city (on signage at the I-469 interchange).

Give the impression that Indiana and Ohio like to pretend the other doesn't exist.

On that road only Toledo and Fort Wayne should be used

[jp the roadgeek]

How I-80 in PA should look

Eastbound

OH - I-99: State College
I-99 - US 220: Williamsport
US 220 - I-81: Scranton/NYC
From I-81 East: NYC

Westbound

To I-380: Scranton
I-380 - I-180: Williamsport
I-180 - I-99: State College
I-99 - OH: Youngstown (also Cleveland at I-79 and I-376 junctions)

[SkyPesos]

US 24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne sticks out to me as for the control cities along it. I understand in Ohio the standard practice is to have the next county seat as the control city for US and State routes, so I get Napoleon and Defiance, OH being control cities. But going west past Defiance, Antwerp, OH becomes the control city in Ohio.

And in Fort Wayne, US 24 has no control city (on signage at the I-469 interchange).

Give the impression that Indiana and Ohio like to pretend the other doesn't exist.

Ohio does a terrible job with control cities on non-interstate expressways in general. US 35 is a well-used route between the Midwest and Carolinas (even has a higher AADT than I-77 at their respective Ohio River crossings), yet uses every small town on the route as a control city. Should use nothing besides Dayton, Chillicothe and Charleston WV

[tdindy88]

US 24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne sticks out to me as for the control cities along it. I understand in Ohio the standard practice is to have the next county seat as the control city for US and State routes, so I get Napoleon and Defiance, OH being control cities. But going west past Defiance, Antwerp, OH becomes the control city in Ohio.

And in Fort Wayne, US 24 has no control city (on signage at the I-469 interchange).

Give the impression that Indiana and Ohio like to pretend the other doesn't exist.

Toledo does appear on some signage along US 24 in Indiana as an eastbound control, with Defiance at one and only one spot at SR 101.

It's a crime that it's not signed off of I-469. My thinking is that they also have Rose Avenue (the stretch of road to the west of the interchange) signed as well. And you just CAN'T sign a street and a control city on the same sign, so Rose Avenue gets to stay. That's why you don't see Toledo.

Westbound from US 23 in Toledo Fort Wayne should be signed, but they can keep the county seats at the smaller interchange signs and leave Fort Wayne at the bottom line on mileage signs.

[Big John]

US 24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne sticks out to me as for the control cities along it. I understand in Ohio the standard practice is to have the next county seat as the control city for US and State routes, so I get Napoleon and Defiance, OH being control cities. But going west past Defiance, Antwerp, OH becomes the control city in Ohio.

And in Fort Wayne, US 24 has no control city (on signage at the I-469 interchange).

Give the impression that Indiana and Ohio like to pretend the other doesn't exist.

Toledo does appear on some signage along US 24 in Indiana as an eastbound control, with Defiance at one and only one spot at SR 101.

It's a crime that it's not signed off of I-469. My thinking is that they also have Rose Avenue (the stretch of road to the west of the interchange) signed as well. And you just CAN'T sign a street and a control city on the same sign, so Rose Avenue gets to stay. That's why you don't see Toledo.

Westbound from US 23 in Toledo Fort Wayne should be signed, but they can keep the county seats at the smaller interchange signs and leave Fort Wayne at the bottom line on mileage signs.

Well, they are practicing defiance. 

[bing101]

In SoCal: Hollywood as a control city on the 170 south, Los Angeles and Artesia as control cities on the 91 west, Anaheim as a control city on the 55 north, South County as a control city on the 241, Santa Margarita as a control city on the 241 and 133.

This has to be similar to how control cities are assigned in Sacramento area, CA-99 South has Fresno as the control city and I-5 South is assigned to Los Angeles.

[Quillz]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

[tdindy88]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

How about Santa Clarita? The 405 already has Santa Monica, LAX and Long Beach as controls, would it hurt to keep it more suburban? And Santa Clarita is relatively close to the northern end of the 405.

[Quillz]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

How about Santa Clarita? The 405 already has Santa Monica, LAX and Long Beach as controls, would it hurt to keep it more suburban? And Santa Clarita is relatively close to the northern end of the 405.

Fine with me. Better than Sacramento.

[Ted$8roadFan]

US 24 between Toledo and Fort Wayne sticks out to me as for the control cities along it. I understand in Ohio the standard practice is to have the next county seat as the control city for US and State routes, so I get Napoleon and Defiance, OH being control cities. But going west past Defiance, Antwerp, OH becomes the control city in Ohio.

And in Fort Wayne, US 24 has no control city (on signage at the I-469 interchange).

Give the impression that Indiana and Ohio like to pretend the other doesn't exist.

Toledo does appear on some signage along US 24 in Indiana as an eastbound control, with Defiance at one and only one spot at SR 101.

It's a crime that it's not signed off of I-469. My thinking is that they also have Rose Avenue (the stretch of road to the west of the interchange) signed as well. And you just CAN'T sign a street and a control city on the same sign, so Rose Avenue gets to stay. That's why you don't see Toledo.

Westbound from US 23 in Toledo Fort Wayne should be signed, but they can keep the county seats at the smaller interchange signs and leave Fort Wayne at the bottom line on mileage signs.

Well, they are practicing defiance. 

While reminiscing about Napoleon 

[Occidental Tourist]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

How about Santa Clarita? The 405 already has Santa Monica, LAX and Long Beach as controls, would it hurt to keep it more suburban? And Santa Clarita is relatively close to the northern end of the 405.

Fine with me. Better than Sacramento.

There's an argument to be made that Irvine, a giant suburb on one end of the 405 (300k population), and Santa Clarita, a giant exurb on the other end (225k), are not only great control cities for the 405, but the 5 as well.

[Roadgeekteen]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

How about Santa Clarita? The 405 already has Santa Monica, LAX and Long Beach as controls, would it hurt to keep it more suburban? And Santa Clarita is relatively close to the northern end of the 405.

Fine with me. Better than Sacramento.

There's an argument to be made that Irvine, a giant suburb on one end of the 405 (300k population), and Santa Clarita, a giant exurb on the other end (225k), are not only great control cities for the 405, but the 5 as well.

I prefer keeping off suburbs. I-5 south of LA should be San Diego and north of LA Sacramento/San Francisco

[The Nature Boy]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

I agree with this point. Sacramento is a terrible control city anywhere that far south. There are a lot of notable places in the Central Valley that are accessible from I-5 that should get control city status: Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton are big enough on their own. There's also the argument that San Francisco or Oakland could work as a control city since it's the quickest way there from Los Angeles. Sacramento is one of the worst possible options for I-5 in LA.

Ignoring almost the entirety of the Central Valley makes no sense.

[SeriesE]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

I agree with this point. Sacramento is a terrible control city anywhere that far south. There are a lot of notable places in the Central Valley that are accessible from I-5 that should get control city status: Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton are big enough on their own. There's also the argument that San Francisco or Oakland could work as a control city since it's the quickest way there from Los Angeles. Sacramento is one of the worst possible options for I-5 in LA.

Ignoring almost the entirety of the Central Valley makes no sense.

(By the way, I completely agree with your point) That's because the local Caltrans district doesn't want to sign indirect control cities. When I-5 used to be US-99, the northbound control city was Bakersfield

[Quillz]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

I agree with this point. Sacramento is a terrible control city anywhere that far south. There are a lot of notable places in the Central Valley that are accessible from I-5 that should get control city status: Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton are big enough on their own. There's also the argument that San Francisco or Oakland could work as a control city since it's the quickest way there from Los Angeles. Sacramento is one of the worst possible options for I-5 in LA.

Ignoring almost the entirety of the Central Valley makes no sense.

I think to what SeriesE was saying, it has to do with those cities being indirectly accessed even by I-5. I think for I-405, any control city that is closer to Sacramento and also directly reached by I-5 would be ideal. Santa Clarita would probably be the best immediate choice. Stockton is a little closer than Sacramento. Castaic could even work in a more historical sense, and it's also at the tail end of Santa Clarita.

[Roadgeekteen]

I will die on my hill that "Sacramento" is a terrible control city for the 405. Yes, it provides indirect access to Sacramento. But so does I-805 by that logic. There are also plenty of closer cities that could be listed: Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton. Sacramento is fine for a control city, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the 405.

I agree with this point. Sacramento is a terrible control city anywhere that far south. There are a lot of notable places in the Central Valley that are accessible from I-5 that should get control city status: Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton are big enough on their own. There's also the argument that San Francisco or Oakland could work as a control city since it's the quickest way there from Los Angeles. Sacramento is one of the worst possible options for I-5 in LA.

Ignoring almost the entirety of the Central Valley makes no sense.

Sacramento is bigger than Bakersfield and any other central valley cities, plus those cities aren't on I-5.

[DTComposer]

There's an argument to be made that Irvine, a giant suburb on one end of the 405 (300k population), and Santa Clarita, a giant exurb on the other end (225k), are not only great control cities for the 405, but the 5 as well.

I prefer keeping off suburbs. I-5 south of LA should be San Diego and north of LA Sacramento/San Francisco

Irvine is already being used on portions of I-405 south (with San Diego) around CA-22. Irvine blurs the line between suburb and satellite city - it's a major employment and retail center as well as home to a UC campus.

IMO, the modern purpose of control cities is to provide guidance to people not using GPS, or to provide reinforcement to those who are. By and large, locals do not need control cities - so controls that aren't termini or major junctions should be selected on where non-local people (i.e. tourists) are going, directly or indirectly. If you're visiting L.A. and taking I-5 south, it is most likely you're heading to Anaheim or San Diego - those should be the controls. I-5 north, you're most likely going to Sacramento or San Francisco. In that vein, US-101 out of L.A./Hollywood should be signed for Santa Barbara (instead of Ventura). Secondary controls are fine (I'm always in favor of two controls per sign).

[SeriesE]

There's an argument to be made that Irvine, a giant suburb on one end of the 405 (300k population), and Santa Clarita, a giant exurb on the other end (225k), are not only great control cities for the 405, but the 5 as well.

I prefer keeping off suburbs. I-5 south of LA should be San Diego and north of LA Sacramento/San Francisco

Irvine is already being used on portions of I-405 south (with San Diego) around CA-22. Irvine blurs the line between suburb and satellite city - it's a major employment and retail center as well as home to a UC campus.

IMO, the modern purpose of control cities is to provide guidance to people not using GPS, or to provide reinforcement to those who are. By and large, locals do not need control cities - so controls that aren't termini or major junctions should be selected on where non-local people (i.e. tourists) are going, directly or indirectly. If you're visiting L.A. and taking I-5 south, it is most likely you're heading to Anaheim or San Diego - those should be the controls. I-5 north, you're most likely going to Sacramento or San Francisco. In that vein, US-101 out of L.A./Hollywood should be signed for Santa Barbara (instead of Ventura). Secondary controls are fine (I'm always in favor of two controls per sign).

Irvine is only on the I-405 signs in Orange County because they (District 12) want to have their county represented on signs (see also I-5 northbound for Santa Ana where it used to say Los Angeles within OC limits) - LA county (District 7) doesn't care and signs San Diego only

[DTComposer]

There's an argument to be made that Irvine, a giant suburb on one end of the 405 (300k population), and Santa Clarita, a giant exurb on the other end (225k), are not only great control cities for the 405, but the 5 as well.

I prefer keeping off suburbs. I-5 south of LA should be San Diego and north of LA Sacramento/San Francisco

Irvine is already being used on portions of I-405 south (with San Diego) around CA-22. Irvine blurs the line between suburb and satellite city - it's a major employment and retail center as well as home to a UC campus.

IMO, the modern purpose of control cities is to provide guidance to people not using GPS, or to provide reinforcement to those who are. By and large, locals do not need control cities - so controls that aren't termini or major junctions should be selected on where non-local people (i.e. tourists) are going, directly or indirectly. If you're visiting L.A. and taking I-5 south, it is most likely you're heading to Anaheim or San Diego - those should be the controls. I-5 north, you're most likely going to Sacramento or San Francisco. In that vein, US-101 out of L.A./Hollywood should be signed for Santa Barbara (instead of Ventura). Secondary controls are fine (I'm always in favor of two controls per sign).

Irvine is only on the I-405 signs in Orange County because they (District 12) want to have their county represented on signs (see also I-5 northbound for Santa Ana where it used to say Los Angeles within OC limits) - LA county (District 7) doesn't care and signs San Diego only

You may be ascribing malice to District 7 when it's really inertia - when I-405 was originally signed Irvine was little more than a bump in the road. Re-signing projects largely just replicate what was there before.

It also should be noted that if Irvine was signed further up the I-405, it would start at I-710 (only ~4 miles upstream). From the last Google street view (February 2023), the pull-through signage at I-710 is still original (or at least button-copy era); and approaching CA-22/I-605, the signage covers both I-405 south (San Diego) and CA-22 east (Garden Grove), so not a lot of extra room available.

[roadman65]

Florida has the same on I-95. D4 uses West Palm Beach while the district before it uses Miami. Cross the Brevard- Indian River County Line and Miami disappears until after West Palm.

Missouri with Kansas City out of St. Louis on I-70, but cross into St. Louis County and Wentzville suddenly appears, followed by Columbia after  Wentzville.  KC don’t appear again until after Columbia.

Eastbound I-70 uses St. Louis from west of KC in Kansas, then Columbia takes over after leaving the KC metro and then Columbia vanishes way before Columbia is reached.

[SeriesE]

You may be ascribing malice to District 7 when it's really inertia - when I-405 was originally signed Irvine was little more than a bump in the road. Re-signing projects largely just replicate what was there before.

It also should be noted that if Irvine was signed further up the I-405, it would start at I-710 (only ~4 miles upstream). From the last Google street view (February 2023), the pull-through signage at I-710 is still original (or at least button-copy era); and approaching CA-22/I-605, the signage covers both I-405 south (San Diego) and CA-22 east (Garden Grove), so not a lot of extra room available.

Malice is such a strong word haha I meant it's more of the districts just do their own thing and don't coordinate with each other for little things like control cities.

D7 favors signing big cities/county seats over suburbs recently - with Hollywood* on US-101 and San Fernando on I-210 disappearing as control cities.

* This might be due to Hollywood is part of LA City so they thought they have to sign a real city on the sign. I think it's fine either way.

[RobbieL2415]

I have problems with this one. How many people are going to Framingham that it needs top billing as a control city? Boston would be just fine. And Taunton?? The old sign used to be NH-Maine/Cape Cod!
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2632457,-71.5719557,3a,75y,67.81h,86.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbWnZ6bJ-LxIIBqj_ZxgoyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Just Berlin would have been fine, here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6223891,-72.7266385,3a,75y,309.95h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQG076J7O0td-sRucaZ8KCg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQG076J7O0td-sRucaZ8KCg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.2488%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

This is not a control city and is therefore worthless. Probably should be NYC here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5302772,-72.7699033,3a,75y,192.66h,99.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soDmDPIzQZwcZiNGpa8vU9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[hobsini2]

I have problems with this one. How many people are going to Framingham that it needs top billing as a control city? Boston would be just fine. And Taunton?? The old sign used to be NH-Maine/Cape Cod!
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2632457,-71.5719557,3a,75y,67.81h,86.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbWnZ6bJ-LxIIBqj_ZxgoyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Just Berlin would have been fine, here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6223891,-72.7266385,3a,75y,309.95h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQG076J7O0td-sRucaZ8KCg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQG076J7O0td-sRucaZ8KCg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.2488%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

This is not a control city and is therefore worthless. Probably should be NYC here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5302772,-72.7699033,3a,75y,192.66h,99.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soDmDPIzQZwcZiNGpa8vU9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

First one, I agree it should be Portsmouth and Cape Cod.
The last one, Wilbur Cross Pkwy is a good control because of the vehicle restrictions on the Pkwys. Road names can be useful controls. They don't need to have cities.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I have problems with this one. How many people are going to Framingham that it needs top billing as a control city? Boston would be just fine. And Taunton?? The old sign used to be NH-Maine/Cape Cod!
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2632457,-71.5719557,3a,75y,67.81h,86.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbWnZ6bJ-LxIIBqj_ZxgoyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Just Berlin would have been fine, here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6223891,-72.7266385,3a,75y,309.95h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQG076J7O0td-sRucaZ8KCg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQG076J7O0td-sRucaZ8KCg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D318.2488%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

This is not a control city and is therefore worthless. Probably should be NYC here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5302772,-72.7699033,3a,75y,192.66h,99.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soDmDPIzQZwcZiNGpa8vU9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I also liked NH-Maine/Cape Cod at the Pike/I-495 interchange as well, since I-495 is the de facto route for those heading to northern New England or Cape Cod while still serving commuters in Massachusetts. But I'm sure MassDOT either felt some local pressure or decided to follow the book by using Portsmouth and Taunton. As far a local cities go, I would have been OK with using the even older Marlborough/Milford.