Worst control city on an interstate in your state

[kirbykart]

^Classic PennDOT 

In response to Wisconsin controls, Tomah is bad and should not be used. Use Eau Claire, it's not as if I-90 goes anywhere of greater significance. In fact, at the 90/94 split I'd go with Eau Claire and Minneapolis for I-94 West, and La Crosse (annoying, but there's nothing else of consequence) and then, Rochester or Austin MN? Neither are super large, and both have larger cities of the same name in other parts of the country. And Sioux Falls SD is too far away, so honestly I'm stumped. I take back my criticisms of La Crosse.

[JKRhodes]

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

I grew up in Safford and remember seeing Lordsburg listed as a control city as I rode through the junction of 191 and US 70. When I was old enough to drive my own car, I drove to Lordsburg and was sorely disappointed by the size and condition of the town.

To be fair, I believe its status as a control city is a holdover from the 70s and 80s when the town was more vibrant, and also currently justified by its junction with the last surface leg of US 70 which is utilized several times per year as a detour route for I-10 traffic when the interstate gets closed due to dust storms, crashes and such.

Similarly, Tucumcari as a control city makes sense being a nexus point for US 54

As for Las Vegas... I honestly feel bad for anyone who follows those signs expecting the more famous and fun version.

[SkyPesos]

What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.

I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.

[SEWIGuy]

^Wisconsin is pretty weird though. Fond du Lac isn't great

Fond du Lac isn't great, but it's not terrible either.  Appleton or Oshkosh would be better.

[kphoger]

I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis.  I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis.  I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.

[roadman65]

People have changed over time.  I knew of people I worked with in Orlando who had no idea where Winter Park was despite it being a suburb to the north directly bordering Orlando.   Then I've heard one person who never heard of Altamonte Springs, a popular retail destination in Central Florida part of the Orlando area.  This was pre GPS and cell phone era.

People living in big cities are different.  When you never have any need to drive any farther than thirty miles for any reason, then your knowledge of the outside world can be very limited in scope.  In contrast, people who do actually drive for travel tend to have a wider knowledge of the outside world.

Beyond that, as I said, there is a decent number of people who enjoy some casual atlas-flipping, planning an armchair road trip, from time to time.

(I remember telling someone in Kansas City that we were from western Kansas.  Their answer was "you mean, like, Salina?"  No, we said, Salina isn't in western Kansas.  They then looked at us with an uncomprehending blank stare.  Contrast that with the people I grew up around in western Kansas, most of whom could tell you multiple routes for driving to each of Denver, Wichita, Lincoln, etc.)

It's kind of like the phenomenon here with people in Chicagoland. Unless you are a roadgeek or from downstate, to most people from here, anything south of I-80 in a lot of peoples minds is "Downstate" when in a geographical sense, Downstate doesn't start in reality until you are south of the Springfield-Champaign corridor.

New York is the same way.  People from New Jersey, New York City, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties refer to anything above the Bronx- Westchester Border as Upstate NY. People from Westchester and Rockland Counties of New York seem to refer to further north in the state as Upstate.

[hobsini2]

I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis.  I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis.  I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.

FYI, The primary for 94 WB is actually St Paul and not Minneapolis.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9799671,-90.4250996,3a,75y,298.74h,120.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skIZqiXddUMiKhgCAhJK1_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And for the record, I think this is good.

[kphoger]

Ah, forgot it was St Paul rather than Minneapolis.  I'm fine with that, as it's the closer of the two.

[thenetwork]

What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.

I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.

Very plausible.  A noticeable  part of the 76/224 freeway between Akron and Lodi was originally signed as only US-224 -- this was even before I-80S was duplexed with US-224.

In fact, part of the new highway in the late 50s/early 60s was briefly listed on state maps as a Super-2 through Medina County, and did not get the I-80S designation until it was twinned to interstate standards.

[wanderer2575]

What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.

I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.

One could argue that the control cities should be Lodi (for US-224) and Columbus (for I-76).

[SkyPesos]

What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.

I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.

One could argue that the control cities should be Lodi (for US-224) and Columbus (for I-76).

OhioDOT normally doesn't use secondary control cities and just primaries, but yea, I would definitely go with Columbus on I-76 WB west of Akron, as most long-distance traffic past that point will continue on I-71 SB past I-76's terminus, which heads towards Columbus. Personally, idrc if Lodi is signed or not, as long as Columbus is included.

[Flint1979]

What I get is the fact that some cities pick and choose cities either the old US routes it replaced to use on interstates or a once former terminus of the freeway.

I wonder if that's why I-76 WB west of Akron uses Barberton and Lodi, as those are ok choices as control cities for US 224, but pretty bad for I-76.

I-76 doesn't continue west of there and US-224 does so I assume that using a control city on US-224 is fine since it continues. I don't know about Barberton other than maybe it's because I-76 turns to the south to go toward Barberton and ODOT couldn't think of a better choice. I-76 does briefly go through Barberton but I have always considered a suburb of Akron and I'm not too fond of using random suburbs for control cities which is one reason why I don't argue against using Port Huron on I-696 EB in Michigan because if Port Huron wasn't used than it would probably be Warren or Roseville (Warren I could see because it isn't just some random suburb it's the third largest city in Michigan).

[kirbykart]

I-90/94 WB should be dual-signed for La Crosse and Minneapolis.  I-39/90/94 could even be triple-signed for Wausau, La Crosse, and Minneapolis.  I don't think one Interstate should be ignored just because it's concurrent with another one.

Nah, ignore Wausau and La Crosse. The largest metro area by far is the Twin Cities and I-90 can just have La Crosse where it splits off. And I-39 North should be Stevens Point IMO, not Wausau.

[GaryV]

A little off topic, but why is the I-71/I-76/US-224 intersection such a mess? Was it intended for there to be toll booths?

[SEWIGuy]

^Classic PennDOT 

In response to Wisconsin controls, Tomah is bad and should not be used.

Tomah makes perfect sense when you have Madison in the other direction. 

[kirbykart]

^What are you trying to say? Madison is a very large city and Wisconsin's capital. Tomah is neither.

[mgk920]

^What are you trying to say? Madison is a very large city and Wisconsin's capital. Tomah is neither.

Tomah is a well-known major highway junction in the state and a good stopping off point during a family vacation roadtrip.  If you don't like it, set the time machine back 75-80 years and have what became the I-90/94 split moved to a different location.

Mike

[JoePCool14]

Tomah is an okay control. It could be much worse. But posting La Crosse and Eau Claire would be more helpful for long-distance drivers.

[SEWIGuy]

^What are you trying to say? Madison is a very large city and Wisconsin's capital. Tomah is neither.

Tomah is a well-known major highway junction in the state and a good stopping off point during a family vacation roadtrip.  If you don't like it, set the time machine back 75-80 years and have what became the I-90/94 split moved to a different location.

Exactly.  People WAY overthink control cities and their purpose. 

Tomah is an okay control. It could be much worse. But posting La Crosse and Eau Claire would be more helpful for long-distance drivers.

Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.

[hotdogPi]

Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.

I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.

[MATraveler128]

Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.

I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.

Tomah is probably used because it is a major Interstate junction (I-90 and I-94). But what about Rochester? That is the third largest city in Minnesota and it is growing fairly rapidly. If anything, I'd rather see signs use "La Crosse, Rochester" .

[dvferyance]

Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.

I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.

I first heard to Tomah when I took the Empire Builder to Portland. I remember there was a stop there.

[kirbykart]

A little off topic, but why is the I-71/I-76/US-224 intersection such a mess? Was it intended for there to be toll booths?

It is pretty weird looking at Google Maps, but deceptive in real life. I went through that interchange once just straight through on I-71, and I thought it was a normal cloverleaf interchange!

[GaryV]

A little off topic, but why is the I-71/I-76/US-224 intersection such a mess? Was it intended for there to be toll booths?

It is pretty weird looking at Google Maps, but deceptive in real life. I went through that interchange once just straight through on I-71, and I thought it was a normal cloverleaf interchange!

We recently drove I-71 sb to US-224 wb and had to take the strange loop ramp.

[SEWIGuy]

Or they could look at a map. Long distance drivers aren't going to know where Eau Claire or LaCrosse are either.

I've heard of both Eau Claire and La Crosse but not Tomah. This is from someone well away from Wisconsin.

Well, since YOU have there isn't really a problem!   

Regardless, "hearing" of something doesn't mean you can place it on a map.