Limon

[Scott5114]

I've never lived in Denver, but my suspicion is that more people there know where Limon is than know where Hays is.

They probably do. And having huge overhead signs with Limon plastered on them on I-70, I-25, I-225, and E-470 certainly helps.

I would potentially be in favor of using Topeka, if Hays is considered provincial or an unknown destination for Denver travelers. Topeka would be the next "large" city on I-70 east of Denver. It would skip over a few control cities to use Topeka, but there's precedent for that with places like Kansas City skipping over Columbia and Wentzville in favor of using St. Louis.

No one in Denver can point to Topeka on a map either.

Maybe not, but they do teach the state capitals there, yeah? So at least they would know Topeka would be in the general direction of Kansas.

Sure, but so is Liberal and you don't take the same highways to get here, hence why I hate control states.

I agree, which is why I'd rather it be "Topeka" than "Kansas"–because someone who is using it as a general "off to the east" destination is served basically just as well as if it said "Kansas" (and if they're not, it's on them for not paying attention in school), but someone who is actually trying to reach a specific point in Kansas won't be misled that I-70 may be the best route for them when it's not.

I don't really have a problem with Limon or Hays as control cities, mind you. But if you did have to get rid of them, Topeka would be the best choice.

[zachary_amaryllis]

I've never lived in Denver, but my suspicion is that more people there know where Limon is than know where Hays is.

They probably do. And having huge overhead signs with Limon plastered on them on I-70, I-25, I-225, and E-470 certainly helps.

I would potentially be in favor of using Topeka, if Hays is considered provincial or an unknown destination for Denver travelers. Topeka would be the next "large" city on I-70 east of Denver. It would skip over a few control cities to use Topeka, but there's precedent for that with places like Kansas City skipping over Columbia and Wentzville in favor of using St. Louis.

No one in Denver can point to Topeka on a map either.

Isn't it right off Arapahoe Road, on Emporia Street, oh, about a 1/2 mile east of I-25?

[JayhawkCO]

I've never lived in Denver, but my suspicion is that more people there know where Limon is than know where Hays is.

They probably do. And having huge overhead signs with Limon plastered on them on I-70, I-25, I-225, and E-470 certainly helps.

I would potentially be in favor of using Topeka, if Hays is considered provincial or an unknown destination for Denver travelers. Topeka would be the next "large" city on I-70 east of Denver. It would skip over a few control cities to use Topeka, but there's precedent for that with places like Kansas City skipping over Columbia and Wentzville in favor of using St. Louis.

No one in Denver can point to Topeka on a map either.

Isn't it right off Arapahoe Road, on Emporia Street, oh, about a 1/2 mile east of I-25?

I can't think off a city less like a jewelry store than Topeka. 😊

[hotdogPi]

For the parts of I-70 where Limon would be signed eastbound, "Kansas"  is accurate for almost all of the state's population, including Dodge City and Wichita. Liberal is (I believe) an exception, but it's nowhere near as large as other cities in Kansas. A state control is fine.

Yes, you get off at Limon to go to Dodge City, but the name "Limon"  gives no indication of that, so it wouldn't be useful.

[kphoger]

I don't really have a problem with Limon or Hays as control cities, mind you. But if you did have to get rid of them, Topeka would be the best choice.

The next Interstate junction would be Salina, which is where most Wichita-bound traffic turns south (and those who turn earlier are already very familiar with the highways), so I'd also be OK with that instead of Topeka.

[JayhawkCO]

For the parts of I-70 where Limon would be signed eastbound, "Kansas"  is accurate for almost all of the state's population, including Dodge City and Wichita. Liberal is (I believe) an exception, but it's nowhere near as large as other cities in Kansas. A state control is fine.

Yes, you get off at Limon to go to Dodge City, but the name "Limon"  gives no indication of that, so it wouldn't be useful.

So "New York" is good for I-90 Westbound out of Boston? I hate control states.

[kalvado]

For the parts of I-70 where Limon would be signed eastbound, "Kansas"  is accurate for almost all of the state's population, including Dodge City and Wichita. Liberal is (I believe) an exception, but it's nowhere near as large as other cities in Kansas. A state control is fine.

Yes, you get off at Limon to go to Dodge City, but the name "Limon"  gives no indication of that, so it wouldn't be useful.

So "New York" is good for I-90 Westbound out of Boston? I hate control states.

I was half honestly arguing for using "Seattle" over there. New York imho would be bad only because of conflict with NYC

[kphoger]

So "New York" is good for I-90 Westbound out of Boston? I hate control states.

I was half honestly arguing for using "Seattle" over there. New York imho would be bad only because of conflict with NYC

Heh.  That reminded me of the time I picked up a hitchhiker heading north on I-135 in Wichita, who was using a sign that said "Seattle".

[Rothman]

For the parts of I-70 where Limon would be signed eastbound, "Kansas"  is accurate for almost all of the state's population, including Dodge City and Wichita. Liberal is (I believe) an exception, but it's nowhere near as large as other cities in Kansas. A state control is fine.

Yes, you get off at Limon to go to Dodge City, but the name "Limon"  gives no indication of that, so it wouldn't be useful.

So "New York" is good for I-90 Westbound out of Boston? I hate control states.

Yes.

[Scott5114]

I don't really have a problem with Limon or Hays as control cities, mind you. But if you did have to get rid of them, Topeka would be the best choice.

The next Interstate junction would be Salina, which is where most Wichita-bound traffic turns south (and those who turn earlier are already very familiar with the highways), so I'd also be OK with that instead of Topeka.

Problem is that Salina CO is accessed by westbound I-70 from Denver. So you'd have to do the awkward "Salina Colo" and "Salina Kan" thing that Tennessee has to do with Jackson. Probably easier to just skip Salina, then.

A state control is fine.

Just to make sure you know exactly how big of an area you're advocating for being used as a control point here...

[Rothman]

I don't see the problem.

[JayhawkCO]

I don't really have a problem with Limon or Hays as control cities, mind you. But if you did have to get rid of them, Topeka would be the best choice.

The next Interstate junction would be Salina, which is where most Wichita-bound traffic turns south (and those who turn earlier are already very familiar with the highways), so I'd also be OK with that instead of Topeka.

Problem is that Salina CO is accessed by westbound I-70 from Denver. So you'd have to do the awkward "Salina Colo" and "Salina Kan" thing that Tennessee has to do with Jackson. Probably easier to just skip Salina, then.

There is no Salina, CO. There is, however, Salida, CO.

[Scott5114]

I don't really have a problem with Limon or Hays as control cities, mind you. But if you did have to get rid of them, Topeka would be the best choice.

The next Interstate junction would be Salina, which is where most Wichita-bound traffic turns south (and those who turn earlier are already very familiar with the highways), so I'd also be OK with that instead of Topeka.

Problem is that Salina CO is accessed by westbound I-70 from Denver. So you'd have to do the awkward "Salina Colo" and "Salina Kan" thing that Tennessee has to do with Jackson. Probably easier to just skip Salina, then.

There is no Salina, CO. There is, however, Salida, CO.

Ah, I was thinking of Salina, UT.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm in favor of just doubling up a minor destination with a major one. "Limon", "Hays", or "Salina" with Kansas City. If CDOT wants to keep it in-state, not much of another choice. Burlington would be just as stupid as Limon.

[minneha]

The possible confusion with Salina, Utah is a valid argument for not using Salina, Kansas as a control city for eastbound I-70 in Colorado. But the thing is, Salina, Kansas doesn't need to be used as a control city in Colorado anyway. Hays is a perfectly acceptable control city that is not only 100 miles closer to Denver, but is the largest city on I-70 in western Kansas. Hays has a population of 21,000, compared to Limon's 2,000. People argue that Limon is well-known. I would argue that it's only well-known because there are control city signs for it everywhere. If Limon wasn't used as a control city, it wouldn't be any more well-known than Burlington, Goodland, Colby, or even Oakley. It would just be another small town on I-70 that people buzz by in two minutes.

If Limon was dropped and Hays was used on control city signs in metro Denver (not "Hays, Kan.", just "Hays", as Colorado already uses on distance signs east of Limon), eventually Denver drivers would realize where Hays is. Limon is only well-known because it's on the signs. By using Hays, you're basically saying the same thing that you would be saying if you used "Kansas" on signage, but you would be able to use a city rather than a state as the control city.

[JayhawkCO]

The possible confusion with Salina, Utah is a valid argument for not using Salina, Kansas as a control city for eastbound I-70 in Colorado.

No it's not. No one in Denver has heard of Salina, UT.

For the record, for the anti-Limons, I'm much more amenable to Hays than I am Topeka or Kansas City.

[brad2971]

The possible confusion with Salina, Utah is a valid argument for not using Salina, Kansas as a control city for eastbound I-70 in Colorado.

No it's not. No one in Denver has heard of Salina, UT.

For the record, for the anti-Limons, I'm much more amenable to Hays than I am Topeka or Kansas City.

If you are a Denverite who has driven I-70 west to I-15, then to Las Vegas and SoCal, you most certainly have heard of Salina UT. After all, that town famously sits at the end of a 109 mile stretch without any gas or other services.

[brad2971]

The possible confusion with Salina, Utah is a valid argument for not using Salina, Kansas as a control city for eastbound I-70 in Colorado. But the thing is, Salina, Kansas doesn't need to be used as a control city in Colorado anyway. Hays is a perfectly acceptable control city that is not only 100 miles closer to Denver, but is the largest city on I-70 in western Kansas. Hays has a population of 21,000, compared to Limon's 2,000. People argue that Limon is well-known. I would argue that it's only well-known because there are control city signs for it everywhere. If Limon wasn't used as a control city, it wouldn't be any more well-known than Burlington, Goodland, Colby, or even Oakley. It would just be another small town on I-70 that people buzz by in two minutes.

If Limon was dropped and Hays was used on control city signs in metro Denver (not "Hays, Kan.", just "Hays", as Colorado already uses on distance signs east of Limon), eventually Denver drivers would realize where Hays is. Limon is only well-known because it's on the signs. By using Hays, you're basically saying the same thing that you would be saying if you used "Kansas" on signage, but you would be able to use a city rather than a state as the control city.

When you get off I-70 at Exit 359 in Limon, you'll notice that the exit has traveler services that are quite comparable to what Hays (KS) has at I-70 Exit 159. In fact, the only major difference between the two, despite Hays having 19000 more people, is that Limon doesn't (yet) have a Starbucks. Also, bear in mind that Limon is the turnoff point for trucks that supply the Colorado Front Range from Dallas-Ft Worth and the TX Gulf Coast.

[JayhawkCO]

The possible confusion with Salina, Utah is a valid argument for not using Salina, Kansas as a control city for eastbound I-70 in Colorado.

No it's not. No one in Denver has heard of Salina, UT.

For the record, for the anti-Limons, I'm much more amenable to Hays than I am Topeka or Kansas City.

If you are a Denverite who has driven I-70 west to I-15, then to Las Vegas and SoCal, you most certainly have heard of Salina UT. After all, that town famously sits at the end of a 109 mile stretch without any gas or other services.

A) There aren't that many Coloradans that have made that drive, just based on the AADT alone. I would imagine in my friend group, 50% haven't even been to Grand Junction. And these are people who travel internationally.

B) A good chunk of people who HAVE driven that stretch still have never heard of Salina, UT.

[Scott5114]

I just wanted to point out the silliness of the fact that this thread has more pageviews than Limon has residents.

[Rothman]

I just wanted to point out the silliness of the fact that this thread has more pageviews than Limon has residents.

You're silly.

[kalvado]

I just wanted to point out the silliness of the fact that this thread has more pageviews than Limon has residents.

Now we need to make an effort and increase number of views beyond daily traffic count on I-70 in Limon!

[KCRoadFan]

Just have Kansas City as the eastbound control city from Denver. Limon, Burlington, Goodland, Colby, Oakley, WaKeeney, Hays, Russell, Salina, Junction City, and Topeka could be used as secondaries, on a rotating basis. Problem solved!

(All right, I could see Hays, Salina, and Topeka occasionally being used as the primary - that is, third-line - destinations along the Burlington-Oakley, Hays-Russell, and Salina-Junction City sections, respectively, with the closer, smaller town being the secondary, but most of the signs would have KC as the primary.)

The same principle could be applied for signing Denver westbound - at least west of Salina, anyway.

[Flint1979]

Just have Kansas City as the eastbound control city from Denver. Limon, Burlington, Goodland, Colby, Oakley, WaKeeney, Hays, Russell, Salina, Junction City, and Topeka could be used as secondaries, on a rotating basis. Problem solved!

(All right, I could see Hays, Salina, and Topeka occasionally being used as the primary - that is, third-line - destinations along the Burlington-Oakley, Hays-Russell, and Salina-Junction City sections, respectively, with the closer, smaller town being the secondary, but most of the signs would have KC as the primary.)

The same principle could be applied for signing Denver westbound - at least west of Salina, anyway.

I think the problem with having Kansas City as the control city in Denver is the distance between the two, it's 600 miles from Denver to KC so that is quite a stretch. Limon is fine as a control city because people in Colorado are going to know where it is. I'm sure CDOT doesn't care about long distance travel they try to use control cities within their own state.

[Flint1979]

I think even using Hays is too far from Denver. It's 340 miles and Hays really isn't a big enough city to justify the distance. Limon is 90 miles from Denver, it's fine. It's been mentioned many times that there isn't a limit on how big the city has to be to be a control city. If that was the case then MDOT wouldn't be able to use Mackinac Bridge and PennDOT wouldn't be able to use Delaware Water Gap which I think is a stupid control city anyway it should just be New York City across the entire state of Pennsylvania. I know it's almost 400 miles from the Ohio/Pennsylvania border to NYC but we're talking about the largest city in the country compared to some small towns in Kansas. Considering that Limon is considered a hub city in Eastern Colorado I think the control city status is fine.