Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[roadman65]

Obligatory Del Water Gap on I-80 W here in North Jersey, but another one that particularly bothers me is on I-280 E at Exit 4 (Eisenhower Parkway), the control city is Kearny instead of the state's largest city which the highway serves before Kearny! Really need NJDOT to put a little more thought into the control cities on new signs than "municipality where highway ends".

Is Kearny used because it's the end of the I-280?

I believe so, it seems to be NJDOT standard practice for control cities now. The new BGS on NJ-10 W at I-287 uses Roxbury since that's where it terminates, even though the signs on 287 for 10 W use Dover, and Roxbury is rarely referred to in everyday conversation locally anyway (people instead refer to two constituent neighborhoods of the township, Ledgewood and Succasunna, same as Hanover with Whippany/Cedar Knolls).

Mileage signs too use terminating control cities in NJ.  Roxbury is the mileage control west of US 202 on NJ 10 also.

In South Jersey you have Ewing used on NB I-295 mileage signs as the final destination and neither Camden or Trenton used as well. Apparently that particular interstate don't enter neither city but serve the surrounding areas of them, but NJDOT wants direct except on I-80 that constantly uses New York ( which I-80 ends 3 miles prior to the big city).

Then on I-195 you have now TO NJ 29 or TO NJ 138 on pull throughs to accompany eitherTrenton or Belmar.  NJDOT is adding the extra NJ 29 and 138 shields to state that I-195 don't go there as part of that same mentality.

NJ has gotten bad. For a while they were doing well and signing good control points on the freeway ramps as for years interstates and toll roads never used them except in a few places.

Overall the mileage signs in the Garden State have the worst places to use. Instead of directing you to prominent places they use unheard of townships. Though Bedminster is popular for AT & T,  on I-78 at the Delaware River and past the US22 split they use that particular township as a destination point along the interstate.  IMO the interstate junction of I-287 would work better over Bedminster as that particular junction is a key interchange for motorists.

[JoePCool14]

Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8

Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.

Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.

I would make it Arkansas there. Keep the "state"  theme

Apples to oranges.

1), Wisconsin is 50 miles away and borders Illinois. Arkansas is 460 miles away and does not border Illinois.

2), a far larger percentage of Chicago traffic is headed to Wisconsin than Arkansas.

3), also a big part of why IDOT goes with 'Wisconsin' is because there's two pretty much equally significant ways that traffic enters Wisconsin from Chicago (I-90 and I-94). They could sign Milwaukee but that would be unhelpful for all I-90 traffic, or they could sign Rockford but that would be unhelpful for all I-94 traffic.

Yes, that is why. But one could argue that both Rockford and Milwaukee should be used since there are two separate interstates being carried on the route. Or better yet, let's just put "North Suburbs" on there instead because that's so useful.

[ilpt4u]

Here's a typical IDOT I-94 Wisconsin sign.

https://goo.gl/maps/xHF664gMRHV3QXLN8

Nothing about it seems too out of the ordinary. It's a stupid choice, but typical...until you realize this is Stony Island Ave and you're still south of the Chicago Loop.

Memphis and Wisconsin on the same gantry made me double take. I-57 south out of Chicago should be Champaign.

I would make it Arkansas there. Keep the "state"  theme

Apples to oranges.

1), Wisconsin is 50 miles away and borders Illinois. Arkansas is 460 miles away and does not border Illinois.

2), a far larger percentage of Chicago traffic is headed to Wisconsin than Arkansas.

3), also a big part of why IDOT goes with 'Wisconsin' is because there's two pretty much equally significant ways that traffic enters Wisconsin from Chicago (I-90 and I-94). They could sign Milwaukee but that would be unhelpful for all I-90 traffic, or they could sign Rockford but that would be unhelpful for all I-94 traffic.

Yes, that is why. But one could argue that both Rockford and Milwaukee should be used since there are two separate interstates being carried on the route. Or better yet, let's just put "North Suburbs" on there instead because that's so useful.

Careful, you might give IDOT D1 an idea...

[kirbykart]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

[XamotCGC]

Louisville

[roadman65]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.

[kirbykart]

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.

[kirbykart]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.

To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).

  While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.

[US 89]

Utah often uses control cities at rural interchanges that are quite a bit smaller and more local than what's on the AASHTO list. Things like Tremonton, Richfield, Cedar City, or St George (which I argue should be a national control anyway). Although some people take issue with this and only ever want big cities used, I don't mind it...except in one case: most interchanges on I-84 between I-15 and the Idaho line use Snowville as the westbound control. This is a town with two gas stations and somewhere around 170 people. I mean...come on, at least the other local controls have traffic lights.

They should use Burley on that whole section for westbound (as is already done at the Snowville interchange) or else just bite the bullet and put Twin Falls or Boise.

[kirbykart]

Utah often uses control cities at rural interchanges that are quite a bit smaller and more local than what's on the AASHTO list. Things like Tremonton, Richfield, Cedar City, or St George (which I argue should be a national control anyway). Although some people take issue with this and only ever want big cities used, I don't mind it...except in one case: most interchanges on I-84 between I-15 and the Idaho line use Snowville as the westbound control. This is a town with two gas stations and somewhere around 170 people. I mean...come on, at least the other local controls have traffic lights.

They should use Burley on that whole section for westbound (as is already done at the Snowville interchange) or else just bite the bullet and put Twin Falls or Boise.

I think the concept of using smaller places at rural, local interchanges is a good idea. Especially in states like Utah, where there is one giant population center and everything else is smaller towns. Generally, traffic at these interchanges is not taking the highway as far and doesn't need the next giant metro area 400 miles away. Snowville does seem like a dumb control though.

[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.

[roadman65]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.

To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).

  While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.

When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL  I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.

[achilles765]

We need to update the control cities on interstate 69 in Texas.
Eliminate Victoria and Cleveland and robstown

From south to north they should be:
69w: Laredo, Houston
69c: pharr, Corpus Christi, Houston.
69e: Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Houston

69: Corpus Christi/rio grande valley, Houston, Texarkana

[Road Hog]

I-40 West in Arkansas got its freak on over the years. They now list OKC as a control city coming out of Little Rock, and Russellville became an intermediate control city from each direction. I-30 in the state still has Little Rock and Texarkana at either end. Dallas doesn't appear until you cross the Red River into Miller County.

[kirbykart]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.

To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).

  While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.

When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.

  WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!



     This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.


       I am in utter shock. 

[MATraveler128]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.

To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).

  While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.

When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.

  WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!



     This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.


       I am in utter shock. 

Yes this is currently on the radar for NYSDOT. I-81 will be rerouted on the existing I-481 and they will turn the remainder in Syracuse into a business route. So this will indeed be the first business route in New York.

[roadman65]

A weird thing in NY is that I-81 at the Thruway says "Boston-Buffalo". Where'd Albany go?

Where did Syracuse go for I-81 from The Thruway? It lists Binghamton for the SB city.

To be fair, you're already in Syracuse at that point (although it isn't unheard of for a city to be used on a freeway from another highway in city limits, as long as that freeway actually brings you closer to the center of the city).

  While Binghamton is smaller than Syracuse, it's not by much.

When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.

  WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!



     This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.


       I am in utter shock. 

It is, but there is nothing anybody can do about it. 

This is not the first time a freeway got downgraded, especially in NY.
I-895 in The Bronx and the Inner Loop of Rochester to name two.

[webny99]

When I-481 becomes I-81, Binghamton will then have to be switched out for Syracuse as having BL I-81 signed for that won't be right given it will have an arterial segment.

  WAIT, WHAT'S HAPPENING??!!??!?!?!?!!!!!!



     This is such a ridiculously horrible idea. Is this actually going to happen or is it just a crazy idea? Because I really hope this isn't happening. Why on Earth would you downgrade part of an expressway to an arterial? And we can't have Business Loops in New York. That's not right.


       I am in utter shock. 

Read about it here at your own risk. 

[GaryV]

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.

[hotdogPi]

In my state? We don't have any mind-blowing ones, and I have no problems with control regions (e.g. Cape Cod). If "To All Maine Points" is in New Hampshire and therefore not in my state (which is problematic because it's not true, not because it's nonstandard), which I believe is the case, then I would say Attleboro on I-95 toward Providence. With nothing truly bad, one has to be chosen somewhere.

For those not familiar with the area, Attleboro is the last city before the state line. It is larger than the surrounding municipalities, but not by nearly enough to sign it over Providence.

[elsmere241]

Someone mentioned the lack of Philadelphia's use of a control city on I-95. I'm beginning to think that Maryland has something against Pennsylvania and doesn't want anyone to travel there. Keep in mind that they're trying to steer traffic onto I-68 and off the PA Turnpike as far away as the greater DC area on I-270.

Of course, Wilmington should be a control on northbound I-95 past Baltimore even before Philly or NYC.

I remember when I moved to Newark, DE in 1982, there was one sign on 695 directing I-95 north traffic to Wilmington and New York.

[hbelkins]

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?

[kirbykart]

If "To All Maine Points" is in New Hampshire and therefore not in my state (which is problematic because it's not true, not because it's nonstandard).

  Ooh yeah, I HATE "All Maine Points" on I-95 North with a passion. I think one of the first 15 posts I made on this forum had to do with this wretched control.

   I actually made two. They're not the greatest posts ever but they get the job done.

I can't say anything about New Hampshire as a whole, but it has a NB I-95 control city that I hate, and that is "All Maine Points". I'll give you some reasons I hate it:
1) Control cities should NEVER be this vague.
2) It may be good for reaching Portland, Augusta, and Bangor, but a lot of I-95 traffic to Maine is tourists, especially in the summer.
3) Tourists to Maine don't usually want to go to Augusta, or Bangor, they want to go to the beach. I-95 is not great for reaching one of the most popular beaches in Maine, York Beach.
4) But you say, "Kirbykart, many of these tourists want to go to York and York Beach, right?" And I would say "Yes, you are right."
5) So should New Hampshire be posting "All Maine Points" as a control on NB I-95? No, they should not.
By the way, the best way to reach York Beach from the south is to get off at Exit 5 (PORTSMOUTH CIRCLE), then take US 1 BY-PASS. This might seem like a bad idea to go through Portsmouth, but it gets you away from the horrendous I-95 traffic, and that's always a plus. This is also good for getting to Kittery.
While the I-95 Piscataqua River Bridge is a really cool bridge, the drawbridge on US 1 BY-PASS is a unique and interesting experience (I mean, a modern drawbridge) Overall, you get more bang for your buck by taking US 1 BY-PASS over I-95 to York Beach.

I can't say anything about New Hampshire as a whole, but it has a NB I-95 control city that I hate, and that is "All Maine Points". I'll give you some reasons I hate it:

I completely forgot to talk about reaching the lakes of Western Maine, which I-95 doesn't even come remotely close to reaching. The best way for that is to get off at Exit 4
(SPAULDING TURNPIKE
US 4
NH 16
WHITE MOUNTAINS
NH LAKES)
then continue along into Northern NH, then cut over to Maine (US 2 is good for this cross-over) Then you'll be much closer to the lakes of Western Maine than I-95 could ever get you.

[MATraveler128]

If "To All Maine Points" is in New Hampshire and therefore not in my state (which is problematic because it's not true, not because it's nonstandard).

  Ooh yeah, I HATE "All Maine Points" on I-95 North with a passion. I think one of the first 15 posts I made on this forum had to do with this wretched control.

   I'll add in my post in one minute.

New Hampshire also uses "NH Lakes"  and "White Mtns"  as control cities instead of something like  Rochester or Conway. I also don't understand why the Portsmouth control point still has the NH abbreviation even though you're already in the state.

[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.