Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[Terry Shea]

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

And what would you replace Kalamazoo with on US-131 south of GR? Three Rivers? Constantine? White Pigeon?

Kalamazoo is already a secondary control on I-94 - Detroit and Chicago are primary.

How about Portage?  That would really piss them off!

[Terry Shea]

Louisville

Wut?

Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million

  Very good control city.

He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?

Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.

No, it's the entire city.  All routes stop at the city limits.  Of course, after the re-routing, decommissioning and unsigning, I believe that only leaves Business US-131 which now basically ends at the end of the freeway stub, close to the city limits.
  http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html See notes.

[Terry Shea]

Louisville

Wut?

Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million

  Very good control city.

He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?

If they wanted people to visit then one would think that they'd allow state routes to enter the city and not demand that state highways be circumvented around the city and business routes to be cut off at the city limits.

[kphoger]

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

If they wanted people to visit then one would think that they'd allow state routes to enter the city and not demand that state highways be circumvented around the city and business routes to be cut off at the city limits.

1.  I-94 and mainline US-131 still enter Kalamazoo city limits.  Do you have documentation that states otherwise?

2.  Even if Kalamazoo city officials wanted to discourage visitors from coming to their city, that's not really the concern of AASHTO or MDOT.  No, rather their concern is ensuring that drivers get to where they're going.  And, as long as people are going to Kalamazoo, or using Kalamazoo as a waypoint along a larger journey, then why would state and nationwide agencies remove Kalamazoo from their lists of control cities?

3.  You're not going to go on a rant about Baltimore next, are you?

[Flint1979]

Louisville

Wut?

Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million

  Very good control city.

He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?

Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.

No, it's the entire city.  All routes stop at the city limits.  Of course, after the re-routing, decommissioning and unsigning, I believe that only leaves Business US-131 which now basically ends at the end of the freeway stub, close to the city limits.
  http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html See notes.

There aren't any other state highways in the city to justify that it's the entire city. The two state highways (M-96 and M-343) both enter the city briefly before ending. This was all done for travel through downtown so it really didn't effect the rest of the city. It really doesn't matter to me though because I always thought that M-43 between South Haven and Kalamazoo should be a different route than the rest of the route, it's almost like it could be three different route numbers.

[Flint1979]

As mentioned above both I-94 and US-131 enter Kalamazoo. They might clip the city closer to the outskirts but that is still considered entering the city regardless of how you look at it. Actually Kalamazoo should probably be the primary control city going west of Detroit and east of Chicago, it's at a major junction, it's a metro area of over 325,000 people and is the halfway point between Detroit and Chicago.

[hobsini2]

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

Bitter much?

[Terry Shea]

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

Bitter much?

Good lord, people, I posted this mostly as a joke.  But apparently MDOT was retaliating against Kalamazoo.  It was, after all, their decision to end state routes at the Kalamazoo city limits.  That being said, I think the Kalamazoo City Commission showed remarkable stupidity in this matter.  It has to be far better for the city to have state routes going through it, even if they don't really care for the way they're routed, then to have all state routes end at their city limits, or be re-routed around the city.  They're going to lose the business of traveler's along with state funding for these roads.

[Terry Shea]

Louisville

Wut?

Louisville is:
-Kentucky's largest city
-Central City Population of over 600k
-MSA Population of almost 1.4 million

  Very good control city.

He probably dislikes that garbage heap of a city as much as I do.

Kalamazoo should be removed as a control city along I-94, US-131 and anywhere else in Michigan that it appears as a control city.  While it certainly has the size and location requirements for a control city, the fact that it demanded that MDOT remove all state highways from within its city limits a few years ago, requiring it to reroute state highways, change signage and reconfigure maps at taxpayer expense, it seems obvious that the Kalamazoo City Commission doesn't want people to visit their city.  Now obviously changing control city signage would be a further unnecessary expense to taxpayers, so they should probably wait until it's time to replace control city signs before doing so.

No, it's not that they don't want people to visit, but it's more likely that they wanted local control of the city streets rather than having MDOT control them. Does Michigan not have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits the way that other states do?

Well I would say they do have the ability to negotiate with cities for control of state routes within city limits because the City of Kalamazoo was able to do it. But at the same time these didn't remain state routes with control switching they eliminated the state routes through Kalamazoo. This only happened in Downtown Kalamazoo and not the entire city and the reason to give the city greater control. They converted one-way streets to two-way traffic, lowered speed limits and wanted flexibility over permits and parking.

No, it's the entire city.  All routes stop at the city limits.  Of course, after the re-routing, decommissioning and unsigning, I believe that only leaves Business US-131 which now basically ends at the end of the freeway stub, close to the city limits.
  http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html See notes.

There aren't any other state highways in the city to justify that it's the entire city. The two state highways (M-96 and M-343) both enter the city briefly before ending. This was all done for travel through downtown so it really didn't effect the rest of the city. It really doesn't matter to me though because I always thought that M-43 between South Haven and Kalamazoo should be a different route than the rest of the route, it's almost like it could be three different route numbers.

Once again, every state route in Kalamazoo, with the exception of I-94 and US-131, which both briefly enter the city limits, have either been re-routed or truncated at the city limits:

"In 2019, every through trunkline route in Kalamazoo–BL I-94, BUS US-131 and M-43–as well as the unsigned M-331 were all turned back to local control by MDOT after many, many years of discussion between City and MDOT planners and engineers. City staffers had long sought to eliminate what they termed as "confusing" one-way streets through the heart of downtown Kalamazoo as well as trying to limit or eliminate large trucks from traversing through the city. MDOT, on the other hand, had long stuck to its mandate to provide a smoothly-operating network of arteries, minimizing delays and congestion. The two sides could never come to a satisfactory solution so, in 2018, MDOT staff in Southwest Region finally gave up and acquiesced to the City's demands by agreeing to transfer all downtown trunkline highway routes to local control. As of January 7, 2019, the downtown trunklines became city streets. To retain "route connectivity," MDOT decided to reroute M-43 along US-131 from Kalamazoo to Plainwell, then southeasterly concurrently with M-89 to Richland where it meets back up with the existing route. Unfortunately, this left several "stub routes" terminating at random locations around the city. MDOT employed three different strategies to deal with this:
Retaining the existing route designation, which is the case for the northern "stub" of BUS US-131 from US-131 Exit 41 to the northern Kalamazoo city limit. It remains BUS US-131, but is a spur route now instead of being a complete loop route through the city.
Removing any signed designation and maintaining the route as an unsigned state trunkline, as was the case with the former BL I-94/BUS US-131 segment along Stadium Dr from US-131 at Exit 36 to Rambling Rd, and the former M-43 along W Main St from US-131 at Exit 38 easterly to Douglas St.
Assigning a new route desigation, as was done to the former segment of M-43 along Gull Rd from Richland southwesterly to Riverview Dr northeast of downtown Kalamazoo. This portion of highway was designated M-343 by MDOT Southwest Region staffers in early 2019. Also, the stub of what had been BL I-94 east of the city is redesigated as BS I-94 (Business SPUR I-94)."
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/M-043.html

Additionally, unsigned M-331 was decommissioned, which would certainly seem to be a retaliatory move by MDOT.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/MichHwys250-696.html

Note: The language used in these documents clearly say, "state trunklines."  I'm not certain of the exact definition of "state trunkline," but perhaps state trunklines exclude Interstate and US Highways, which would explain why US-131 and I-94 enter the city limits.  Or perhaps they don't enter the city long enough to justify their removal.  Or maybe (most likely), MDOT doesn't have the jurisdiction and/or authority to remove national route designations.  Or it may be some combination of the above.

[Flint1979]

The state routes don't end right at the city limits. They do indeed enter the city limits. The city did this for downtown not for the entire city like I've already mentioned. It was done to give the city more control of the downtown streets and parking and as I have already mentioned as well there aren't any other state highways in Kalamazoo. And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.

[Flint1979]

State trunklines are every state highway in the state of Michigan including Interstate and US highways.  Every one of them is maintained by MDOT.

[kirbykart]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

[JoePCool14]

And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.

Edit: I just realized Flint's quote says DO enter, not don't. I guess here's a map of Kalamazoo to clear the air anyways. Apologies.

[Flint1979]

In all honesty I don't think Michigan really has a bad control city. I can't think of one that is out of place at least on the interstates.

[kphoger]

FYI, the site you keep citing as source material comes from a member of this forum.  It'd be nice if he'd weigh in on the conversation, but unfortunately he hardly ever posts.

[hobsini2]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

[US 89]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

I'd say Santa Rosa on I-40 is right up there on the list of bad city choices, but at least it's a major-ish junction as it's where you split off if you're going down 84 towards Lubbock and beyond. Sort of a Limon type situation.

[JayhawkCO]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.

[hobsini2]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.

I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[JayhawkCO]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.

I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm well aware. You think someone from Boston, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles has ever heard of it? Not a chance in hell.

[thspfc]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.

I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm well aware. You think someone from Boston, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles has ever heard of it? Not a chance in hell.

Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.

[hobsini2]

Circling back to the title, New Mexico has some horrible ones, like Lordsburg, Las Vegas, and Tucumcari.

Tucumcari is not that bad as a secondary. People from outside of New Mexico have heard of it. Las Vegas is only a bad one because of the more famous one not far away. 25 should not use LV at all.

I would bet almost any sum of money that you'd like that if you polled 100 random non-New Mexicans or people who live in the panhandle of Texas, no more than three know which state Tucumcari is in.

I don't think that's the case at all Jayhawk. West of Amarillo, guess what the control city is on the mileage signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2101834,-102.2284188,3a,15y,290.31h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWPRogztlcJL4aT1MxoZxyQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm well aware. You think someone from Boston, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles has ever heard of it? Not a chance in hell.

Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.

First off, in my experience, most Americans don't know how to get anywhere that's more than 100 miles away if that. I know people who have lived in DuPage County their whole lives and they are clueless how to get to say Rockford. That being said, there are some places that stand out more than others regardless of population. Take Wisconsin Dells or Vail or Pigeon Forge. None of those are towns that are any bigger than Tucumcari. But they are know as tourist places.  But if you do any traveling in the west or southwest, you do notice towns like Tucumcari as halfway points between the bigger cities.

Anyway, my point was that Jayhawk said that he thinks most people even in the panhandle would not know it. I think that's greatly exaggerated considering it's on the first mileage sign out of Amarillo. Not saying it should be a primary but it's a legit enough secondary for I-40.

[Terry Shea]

The state routes don't end right at the city limits. They do indeed enter the city limits. The city did this for downtown not for the entire city like I've already mentioned. It was done to give the city more control of the downtown streets and parking and as I have already mentioned as well there aren't any other state highways in Kalamazoo. And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.

Do you have documentation on this, because what I posted clearly says otherwise and comes from a pretty impeccable source.

[Terry Shea]

The state routes don't end right at the city limits. They do indeed enter the city limits. The city did this for downtown not for the entire city like I've already mentioned. It was done to give the city more control of the downtown streets and parking and as I have already mentioned as well there aren't any other state highways in Kalamazoo. And I-94 and US-131 most certainly do enter the city of Kalamazoo.

Do you have documentation on this, because what I posted clearly says otherwise and comes from a pretty impeccable source.

After re-reading everything and studying a few maps, it appears as if BS I-94 and M-343 do enter the city limits very briefly.  M-96 may also enter the city limits, but that's a very close call.  But it's not just the downtown areas that were truncated.  BS I-94 had about 8 miles lopped off from former BL I-94.  I would still say that for all practical purposes, the routes end at the city limits.

[kphoger]

Sometimes I'm tempted to run a survey (outside the forum) to find out how many people actually know these towns that roadgeeks think are well known. Tucumcari. Fort Stockton. Green River. Winnemucca. (Limon.) I would guess that at least 75% of Americans couldn't tell you where any of those towns are, or what highways go through them. Far less than 1% would know all five.

Interestingly, I had personally driven through Fort Stockton, Green River, and Limon all before I'd even graduated high school.  So, even though I grew up 710 miles, 565 miles, and 170 miles away (respectively) from them, my dad and I certainly knew where they were.

And I certainly knew as a kid what state Winnemucca was in, just from paging through an atlas.  It's a "big dot" town on I-80 in an otherwise barren part of the state, and it has an interesting name.  You might be underestimating the number of people who enjoy casually flipping through their Rand McNally once in a while.  I certainly know a few non-roadgeeks who do.