AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status  (Read 51659 times)

golden eagle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Jackson, MS
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 06:27:54 PM
Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« on: April 11, 2016, 11:36:29 PM »

Southbound CA 99 in Sacramento is signed for Fresno, bypassing nearby Stockton (population 300K), about 40-45 miles south of Sacramento.

Southbound I-57 from Chicago is signed for Memphis, though Champaign could also be a control city, given that it's home to the state's flagship university and one of the larger urban areas in Illinois. Also in Chicago, southbound I-55 is signed for St. Louis, despite passing through Illinois' state capital, Springfield. Speaking of St. Louis, I-44's control city is Tulsa, passing over Springfield, MO. I could possibly justify it because it could cause confusion with Springfield, IL, 100 miles north of St. Louis.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5367
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 03:27:06 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2016, 11:49:44 PM »

The most infamous one might be on I-95 in Maryland where Philadelphia is skipped in favor of New York City.
Logged

Kacie Jane

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1680
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kent, WA
  • Last Login: February 01, 2020, 10:04:51 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2016, 02:29:28 AM »

Southbound CA 99 in Sacramento is signed for Fresno, bypassing nearby Stockton (population 300K), about 40-45 miles south of Sacramento.

There's probably two factors at play here. (1) 40-45 miles is maybe a bit close for a control city.  (2) I-5 and SR 99 both go from Sacramento to Stockton.  Only 99 goes to Fresno, so it makes more sense to use that to differentiate the two routes.
Logged

mariethefoxy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 409
  • I'm a traveling fox :3

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seacoast New Hampshire
  • Last Login: February 05, 2023, 04:45:37 PM
    • Magic Foxy Artworks
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2016, 03:29:50 AM »

The most infamous one might be on I-95 in Maryland where Philadelphia is skipped in favor of New York City.

that I can see because most people going up and down the east coast take the Delaware Memorial bridge to the NJ turnpike.
Logged

NWI_Irish96

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6654
  • Formerly cabiness42

  • Age: 49
  • Location: Munster, IN
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 07:53:44 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2016, 08:08:28 AM »

I don't know what defines "large enough" but South Bend is passed over as a control city on the eastbound Indiana Toll Road in favor of "Ohio"
Logged

golden eagle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Jackson, MS
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 06:27:54 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2016, 09:22:29 AM »

I don't know what defines "large enough" but South Bend is passed over as a control city on the eastbound Indiana Toll Road in favor of "Ohio"

I hate state names for control cities  :banghead:.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7369
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: January 16, 2023, 07:07:19 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2016, 09:44:05 AM »

In MA, Lawrence used to be a control city for I-93 (mostly northbound); but now both it and Manchester, NH are passed over in favor of the more distant Concord, NH, the latter being NH's capital.

Along the YDH/128 stretch of I-95; Dedham has been passed over in favor of the less-populous Canton (where I-95 and I-93 meet) on newer southbound signs.  IMHO, Dedham should be maintained since that's where US 1 begins its long multiplex w/I-95 (then I-93 a few miles later) towards Boston.

I hate state names for control cities  :banghead:.
Apparently, MUTCD does too.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2283
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 09:51:11 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2016, 09:45:26 AM »

I don't know what defines "large enough" but South Bend is passed over as a control city on the eastbound Indiana Toll Road in favor of "Ohio"

I hate state names for control cities  :banghead:.

Especially of the state in question is "Hawai'i"...LOL! 

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

The Nature Boy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1528
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: January 25, 2023, 08:44:32 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2016, 10:51:47 AM »

I feel as though I-80 in Ohio passes over a ton of "large enough cities" when it signs New York City as a control city.
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11276
  • Stop making sense

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 08:26:49 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2016, 11:37:22 AM »

Southbound I-57 from Chicago is signed for Memphis, though Champaign could also be a control city, given that it's home to the state's flagship university and one of the larger urban areas in Illinois. Also in Chicago, southbound I-55 is signed for St. Louis, despite passing through Illinois' state capital, Springfield. Speaking of St. Louis, I-44's control city is Tulsa, passing over Springfield, MO. I could possibly justify it because it could cause confusion with Springfield, IL, 100 miles north of St. Louis.

IDOT uses two levels of control cities, a primary control (long distance, can be a state), and a secondary control (a shorter control, typically within Illinois).

1. Springfield is used as a secondary control city, as are Bloomington, Joliet, and East St Louis on I-55.
2. Champaign-Urbana is also a secondary control city, as are Kankakee, Effingham, Mt Vernon, and Cairo on I-57.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 18505
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 07:47:26 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2016, 01:57:16 PM »

The one that jumps out at me in my area is Evansville. No, I-64 does not technically go through it, but it's a destination along the route for a decent portion of traffic. Plus, it's now an intersection of two 2dis. The same logic that led to Dayton being used on I-70 could be used to add Evansville to I-64.

I feel as though I-80 in Ohio passes over a ton of "large enough cities" when it signs New York City as a control city.

I disagree. Not really anything along the route in Pennsylvania warrants that status, IMO.
Logged


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15286
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Japan
  • Last Login: Today at 02:09:00 AM
    • Flickr
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2016, 02:08:13 PM »

I-5 north of Seattle is signed as "Vancouver, BC". Personally, I'm fine with this, but Bellingham, a city with a metro population of over 200,000 people, is rarely ever mentioned on signs. It's important to sign a border, of course, but Bellingham is a massive city to exclude from signs. Then again, it's messy to have multiple control cities, so I'd rather see Vancouver anyways.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4557
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 12:20:03 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2016, 03:13:40 PM »

Southbound CA 99 in Sacramento is signed for Fresno, bypassing nearby Stockton (population 300K), about 40-45 miles south of Sacramento.

There's probably two factors at play here. (1) 40-45 miles is maybe a bit close for a control city.  (2) I-5 and SR 99 both go from Sacramento to Stockton.  Only 99 goes to Fresno, so it makes more sense to use that to differentiate the two routes.

Except that 5 south in Sacramento is signed for "Los Angeles" almost exclusively.  I recall there are some onramp signs for 99 south to Stockton (particularly where Stockton Boulevard/old US 50 & 99 connects with the freeway in South Sacramento) in the area though

Then again, and also in the theme of this thread...US 101 from Santa Clara south has "Los Angeles" as a control city, I'm not sure if Salinas is ever signed southbound in Santa Clara County as a matter of fact.
Logged
Chris Sampang

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4415
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:14 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2016, 04:01:00 PM »

I-84 East: Sturbridge (and Worcester) passed over for Boston (although it ends 55 miles short of Boston), New Britain (pop. 73,000) passed over between Waterbury and Hartford.

I-95 in RI: New London, New Haven, and Bridgeport passed over for New York
I-90 (both directions in NY and MA): Springfield sometimes passed over for Albany, NY/Boston
I-495: Foxboro passed over (should be included since many people from the west use it to get to Gillette)
I-65 North from Indianapolis: Gary passed over for Chicago
I-74 West from Indianapolis: Champaign and Bloomington passed over for Peoria
I-70 West from Indianapolis: Terre Haute and all of Illinois passed over for St. Louis

Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11276
  • Stop making sense

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 08:26:49 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2016, 04:10:42 PM »

I-74 West from Indianapolis: Champaign and Bloomington passed over for Peoria
I-70 West from Indianapolis: Terre Haute and all of Illinois passed over for St. Louis

Again, IDOT uses two levels of controls, a primary (freeway to freeway) and a secondary (every other interchange).

I-74 has Danville, Champaign-Urbana, and Bloomington as secondary controls between Indiana and Peoria.  Peoria and Indianapolis are the primary controls.
I-70 has East St Louis, Effingham, and Terre Haute as secondary controls between St Louis and Indiana.  Indianapolis and St Louis are the primary controls.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

theline

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1085
  • Age: 72
  • Location: South Bend, IN
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 10:43:53 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2016, 05:14:15 PM »

I don't know what defines "large enough" but South Bend is passed over as a control city on the eastbound Indiana Toll Road in favor of "Ohio"

I hate state names for control cities  :banghead:.

Other spots in the NW Indiana use a city rather than state, but the chosen city is Toledo, not South Bend. (https://goo.gl/maps/htLPYPWMey12) Sure, Toledo is bigger, but it much farther away.
Logged

KEVIN_224

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1960
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Last Login: January 30, 2022, 01:22:55 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2016, 06:02:38 PM »

I-84 East: Sturbridge (and Worcester) passed over for Boston (although it ends 55 miles short of Boston), New Britain (pop. 73,000) passed over between Waterbury and Hartford.

I'd say that's due to CT Route 9 being a better option for New Britain when coming from Hartford (via Exit39A) and CT Route 72 when coming from Waterbury (via Exit 35).
Logged

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1693
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:20:10 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2016, 06:57:47 PM »

Is Yuma on I-8 large enough?  Flagstaff is a control city on I-17, so why not Yuma on I-8?  I do believe that on I-8 east of Gila Bend, the secondary city used to alternate between Gila Bend and Yuma, however, I think there may have been a signing replacement that removed all mentions of Yuma east of Gila Bend.
Logged

noelbotevera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3306
  • Now at a Redbox kiosk near you!

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Philippines
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 01:44:34 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2016, 07:40:37 PM »

US 101 north of Ventura to I believe Salinas skips San Jose, opting for San Francisco.
I-5 north of Los Angeles skips over Bakersfield, opting for Sacramento. It was formerly Bakersfield (many signs on the Arroyo Seco Parkway formerly had the control city of I-5 for Bakersfield).
I-20 at I-10 uses Dallas, instead of Abilene.
Logged

tdindy88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1798
  • Last Login: Today at 04:26:16 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2016, 07:42:29 PM »

I-65 North from Indianapolis: Gary passed over for Chicago

Gary is also a shrinking city, it's not even the largest in Lake County anymore and very few people are interested in visiting it. Lafayette, also along I-65, is only a few thousand people short in population than Gary is now and could serve as a better control point, or at least a secondary control point. Otherwise, Chicago is just fine.

The one that jumps out at me in my area is Evansville. No, I-64 does not technically go through it, but it's a destination along the route for a decent portion of traffic. Plus, it's now an intersection of two 2dis. The same logic that led to Dayton being used on I-70 could be used to add Evansville to I-64.

The only problem to this logic, while quite sound, is that when you drive I-70 north of Dayton you are passing through the northern suburbs of Dayton, even passing through the city for a small stretch. You can tell you are driving through the Dayton metro area, even if it's only the northern fringes of it. Meanwhile with I-64 in Evansville, you'd never notice that you are passing by Indiana's third largest city if not for the highway signs leading you onto I-69 and US 41. The development in Evansville is still roughly five miles south of the interstate. If all of Vanderburgh County gets developed than it may be an argument later.

Southbound I-57 from Chicago is signed for Memphis, though Champaign could also be a control city, given that it's home to the state's flagship university and one of the larger urban areas in Illinois. Also in Chicago, southbound I-55 is signed for St. Louis, despite passing through Illinois' state capital, Springfield. Speaking of St. Louis, I-44's control city is Tulsa, passing over Springfield, MO. I could possibly justify it because it could cause confusion with Springfield, IL, 100 miles north of St. Louis.

Finally, with Missouri. If I understand it correctly, the mention of Tulsa along I-44 is only in the St. Louis area. South of there the control city more or less reverts to Springfield all the way to that city with only few mentions of Tulsa. Traveling east along I-44 in Missouri you don't see a whole lot of St. Louis until you get to Rolla.
Logged

golden eagle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Jackson, MS
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 06:27:54 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2016, 09:57:01 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Miami the control city on I-95 in Virginia or North Carolina, despite passing through Savannah and Jacksonville? I also seem to recall southbound I-85 signed as Durham/Atlanta despite passing through Charlotte.
Logged

golden eagle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Jackson, MS
  • Last Login: February 06, 2023, 06:27:54 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2016, 09:58:18 PM »

Is Yuma on I-8 large enough?  Flagstaff is a control city on I-17, so why not Yuma on I-8?  I do believe that on I-8 east of Gila Bend, the secondary city used to alternate between Gila Bend and Yuma, however, I think there may have been a signing replacement that removed all mentions of Yuma east of Gila Bend.

I want to say Yuma is the control city starting in El Centro, CA.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1850
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 11:06:56 PM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2016, 10:03:48 PM »

I-84 East: Sturbridge (and Worcester) passed over for Boston (although it ends 55 miles short of Boston), New Britain (pop. 73,000) passed over between Waterbury and Hartford.

I'd say that's due to CT Route 9 being a better option for New Britain when coming from Hartford (via Exit39A) and CT Route 72 when coming from Waterbury (via Exit 35).

9 and 72 are main routes through New Britain, I-84 sorta forms a western bypass of the city proper.
Logged

DandyDan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1371
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Mason City Iowa
  • Last Login: February 08, 2023, 05:31:40 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2016, 05:29:19 AM »

On I-29 south of Council Bluffs, St. Joseph gets passed up for Kansas City, at least within Iowa.  I also believe Iowa City gets passed up on I-80 for Des Moines and Davenport (depending on which way you're going, of course).
Logged
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

KEVIN_224

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1960
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Last Login: January 30, 2022, 01:22:55 AM
Re: Large-enough cities passed over for control-city status
« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2016, 08:42:08 AM »

I-84 East: Sturbridge (and Worcester) passed over for Boston (although it ends 55 miles short of Boston), New Britain (pop. 73,000) passed over between Waterbury and Hartford.

I'd say that's due to CT Route 9 being a better option for New Britain when coming from Hartford (via Exit39A) and CT Route 72 when coming from Waterbury (via Exit 35).

9 and 72 are main routes through New Britain, I-84 sorta forms a western bypass of the city proper.

Exactly! CT Routes 9 and 72 pass right through downtown. The only I-84 exit that comes close to being actually in New Britain is 36 - Slater Road. Even with that, the western edge of the loop ramp from I-84 West touches the Plainville town line.

We also have the Willow Brook Connector (unsigned CT Route 571). However, that's in Berlin and is really only a feeder highway into CT Route 9 south. In the other direction on the W.B.C., one would have to use CT Route 372 West then CT Route 72 West from that to reach I-84.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.