Control Cities

[JayhawkCO]

The AADT would suggest otherwise.  West of Limon, the AADT is 13,000; east of Limon it's 11,000.  That suggests more people come from Denver and exit onto US40/287 than come from Kansas and exit onto US24.  (For the record, I'm just fine with Limon as a control city in both directions -- just providing some data.)

Well, we don't know the origin of that traffic, of course.  But yeah, isn't that the Ports-to-Plains corridor?

That is to say, traffic leaving Denver and following the P2P takes the exit at Limon.

I would estimate on I-70 going east into Limon, 95% of the traffic passed through the Denver metro and coming westbound into Limon, 80% came from came from Kansas.  No real facts to base that on, just hunches based on populated areas in between.

Chris

[kphoger]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

[US 89]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I personally don't care... but it is worth noting that at the I-25 interchange, the city on the eastbound pull-through is Omaha (or at least was in 2018).

[JayhawkCO]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I personally would just stick with North Platte.  Everything we're arguing for with regards to Limon doesn't really exist for Sidney.  It's not a transportation hub for reaching more populated areas (maybe it's the quickest way to get to Chadron?).  There is a Runza there though...

Chris

[kphoger]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I personally don't care... but it is worth noting that at the I-25 interchange, the city on the eastbound pull-through is Omaha (or at least was in 2018).

But southbound it's Sidney, and northbound it's Sidney.

[hotdogPi]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I personally don't care... but it is worth noting that at the I-25 interchange, the city on the eastbound pull-through is Omaha (or at least was in 2018).

But southbound it's Sidney, and northbound it's Sidney.

Northbound, it pretty much has to be. Anyone going to North Platte or farther would have taken I-76, not I-25. Southbound, the same is true, but with US 26.

The pull-through should remain Omaha.

[kphoger]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I personally don't care... but it is worth noting that at the I-25 interchange, the city on the eastbound pull-through is Omaha (or at least was in 2018).

But southbound it's Sidney, and northbound it's Sidney.

Northbound, it pretty much has to be. Anyone going to North Platte or farther would have taken I-76, not I-25. Southbound, the same is true, but with US 26.

The pull-through should remain Omaha.

What about at all the interchanges in between Cheyenne and North Platte (currently signed as Sidney)?

[thspfc]

In the same general part of the country . . .

I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .

Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I would go with Cheyenne the whole way westbound. Eastbound I would go with "Nebraska"  until the state line, and then Sidney, and then North Platte.

[kphoger]

To me, Sidney makes less sense as a control city than Limon.

[webny99]

In the same general part of the country . . .
I-80, between North Platte (NE) and Cheyenne (WY) . . .
Is everyone fine with Sidney being the control city?

I personally don't care... but it is worth noting that at the I-25 interchange, the city on the eastbound pull-through is Omaha (or at least was in 2018).

But southbound it's Sidney, and northbound it's Sidney.

Northbound, it pretty much has to be. Anyone going to North Platte or farther would have taken I-76, not I-25. Southbound, the same is true, but with US 26.

I'm not sure I agree. There's plenty of precedent for signing a destination for an exit even though you're well past the most logical route there.

Technically, Colorado's use of Limon on northbound I-25 in Denver falls in this category, as northbound traffic would have taken US 24 to reach Limon.

Kansas also uses Topeka on I-135 NB at I-70, and Wichita on I-70 WB at I-135, both well past the fastest freeway route to those cities on their respective corridors.

[webny99]

Eastbound I would go with "Nebraska"  until the state line, and then Sidney, and then North Platte.

I disagree with the use of state names in most cases.

It's too vague and it can be misleading - look at a case like Scranton, PA, where both I-81 and I-84 lead to New York depending on where in New York you're going.

Even from Cheyenne, I-80 isn't the fastest route to the entire state of Nebraska. US 85 is faster to much of the northwestern part of the state, including Scottsbluff.

[thspfc]

Eastbound I would go with "Nebraska"  until the state line, and then Sidney, and then North Platte.

I disagree with the use of state names in most cases.

It's too vague and it can be misleading - look at a case like Scranton, PA, where both I-81 and I-84 lead to New York depending on where in New York you're going.

Even from Cheyenne, I-80 isn't the fastest route to the entire state of Nebraska. US 85 is faster to much of the northwestern part of the state, including Scottsbluff.

I too think that signing cities rather than states is almost always the correct decision. There are about three million scenarios similar to the one in Pennsylvania that you describe where signing a state is not logical. But "most"  is not "all" , and exceptions do exist.

[roadman65]

I have an issue with New England on I-287 in NJ saying "New England (that is six states)"  to use I-87 north to I-84 East.  True it bypasses Westchester County, NY and it's traffic, but if you are going to Vermont I-84 does nothing. Also Western Mass and Southern Connecticut are not served by I-84 once left I-87 either. Rhode Island, yes via I-384 and US 6 as well as the Cape. NH via I-91 from Hartford and Eastern Mass by I-90.

Ok Eastern VT by I-91 too, but places like Bennington, Rutland, Burlington, and the ski resorts are better served by using I-87 north.

I wouldn't object if Hartford- Boston is used instead, but the whole New England I strongly disagree.

[achilles765]

Eastbound I would go with "Nebraska"  until the state line, and then Sidney, and then North Platte.

I really don't like the use of states as control points either.  They're called Control Cities for a reason. I'd only be ok with like local control points on 3dis or maybe as secondaries on the 2di.  Like Interstate 69/US 59 here in Houston, when heading south could use the control points

Bush Intercontinental Airport/Downtown
Downtown
Greenway Plaza-Upper Kirby/Galleria-Uptown/Corpus Christi
Sugar Land/Corpus Christi
Corpus Christi/Rio Grande Valley
I disagree with the use of state names in most cases.

It's too vague and it can be misleading - look at a case like Scranton, PA, where both I-81 and I-84 lead to New York depending on where in New York you're going.

Even from Cheyenne, I-80 isn't the fastest route to the entire state of Nebraska. US 85 is faster to much of the northwestern part of the state, including Scottsbluff.

I too think that signing cities rather than states is almost always the correct decision. There are about three million scenarios similar to the one in Pennsylvania that you describe where signing a state is not logical. But "most"  is not "all" , and exceptions do exist.

[SkyPesos]

One control state example I like is "Indiana" for I-90/94 EB in Chicago. Instead of signing both "Toledo" and "Detroit" (or whatever those two highways would use for cities eastbound, but that's not the point here), it simplifies a sign by signing Indiana. It also indirectly signifies the connection to I-65 SB from both I-90 and 94, which takes drivers from Chicago to the largest city in the state, Indianapolis.

[SEWIGuy]

One control state example I like is "Indiana" for I-90/94 EB in Chicago. Instead of signing both "Toledo" and "Detroit" (or whatever those two highways would use for cities eastbound, but that's not the point here), it simplifies a sign by signing Indiana. It also indirectly signifies the connection to I-65 SB from both I-90 and 94, which takes drivers from Chicago to the largest city in the state, Indianapolis.

It makes sense for "Indiana" and "Wisconsin" to be used in the Chicago area because while the directions of I-90/94 are east / west, it is more of a north / south highway until it gets around Lake Michigan.  Furthermore, they do differentiate between "Rockford" and "Milwaukee" when I-90/94 split, which also makes sense.

Its a situation that is somewhat unique to Chicagoland.

[Flint1979]

Detroit is a control city as far west as the Southside of Chicago. It's in the far southside too like going toward Cal City.

[NWI_Irish96]

Detroit is a control city as far west as the Southside of Chicago. It's in the far southside too like going toward Cal City.

Where have you seen Detroit signed in Illinois? Every sign on I-94 on the Illinois side I've seen says Indiana for I-94 West.

[hotdogPi]

Detroit is a control city as far west as the Southside of Chicago. It's in the far southside too like going toward Cal City.

Where have you seen Detroit signed in Illinois? Every sign on I-94 on the Illinois side I've seen says Indiana for I-94 West.

Indiana isn't west of Illinois...

[SEWIGuy]

Yeah, I don't think I have seen a Detroit sign in Illinois.  In Indiana most definitely.

[NWI_Irish96]

Detroit is a control city as far west as the Southside of Chicago. It's in the far southside too like going toward Cal City.

Where have you seen Detroit signed in Illinois? Every sign on I-94 on the Illinois side I've seen says Indiana for I-94 West.

Indiana isn't west of Illinois...

I meant East.

[kphoger]

Eastbound I would go with "Nebraska"  until the state line, and then Sidney, and then North Platte.

I really don't like the use of states as control points either.  They're called Control Cities for a reason. I'd only be ok with like local control points on 3dis or maybe as secondaries on the 2di.  Like Interstate 69/US 59 here in Houston, when heading south could use the control points

Bush Intercontinental Airport/Downtown
Downtown
Greenway Plaza-Upper Kirby/Galleria-Uptown/Corpus Christi
Sugar Land/Corpus Christi
Corpus Christi/Rio Grande Valley
I disagree with the use of state names in most cases.

It's too vague and it can be misleading - look at a case like Scranton, PA, where both I-81 and I-84 lead to New York depending on where in New York you're going.

Even from Cheyenne, I-80 isn't the fastest route to the entire state of Nebraska. US 85 is faster to much of the northwestern part of the state, including Scottsbluff.

I too think that signing cities rather than states is almost always the correct decision. There are about three million scenarios similar to the one in Pennsylvania that you describe where signing a state is not logical. But "most"  is not "all" , and exceptions do exist.

[Preview]

[ilpt4u]

One control state example I like is "Indiana" for I-90/94 EB in Chicago. Instead of signing both "Toledo" and "Detroit" (or whatever those two highways would use for cities eastbound, but that's not the point here), it simplifies a sign by signing Indiana. It also indirectly signifies the connection to I-65 SB from both I-90 and 94, which takes drivers from Chicago to the largest city in the state, Indianapolis.

It makes sense for "Indiana" and "Wisconsin" to be used in the Chicago area because while the directions of I-90/94 are east / west, it is more of a north / south highway until it gets around Lake Michigan.  Furthermore, they do differentiate between "Rockford" and "Milwaukee" when I-90/94 split, which also makes sense.

Its a situation that is somewhat unique to Chicagoland.

MoDOT signing "Illinois"  as the NB/EB Control for the Poplar St and Stan Musial Bridges also works pretty well, as opposed to listing: Chicago/Indianapolis/Louisville. Gets drivers across the MS River, into Illinois, and approaching the IL junction of I-55/I-64/I-70 where the separate Illinois routings begin to break apart, and at that junction in E St Louis, then the Controls of Chicago, Indy, and Louisville appear

[Flint1979]

Detroit is a control city as far west as the Southside of Chicago. It's in the far southside too like going toward Cal City.

Where have you seen Detroit signed in Illinois? Every sign on I-94 on the Illinois side I've seen says Indiana for I-94 West.

My bad it was on the Indiana side of the border. I always have a hard time figuring out if I'm in Illinois or Indiana in some parts of that area. Once you get down by Cal City and Lansing it's kind of difficult to figure it out.

[jaehak]

Limon isn't really intended to be a control city for the benefit of I-70 thru traffic. It's there for US-287 traffic–look at itinerary, see there's a turn at Limon, see the sign for I-70 East/Limon, and know you're on the right track. Traffic bound for points further east is adequately served by the part where it says "I-70 East".

If you feel like there absolutely must be a control city for the benefit of I-70 thru traffic because not doing so is a threat to your way of life, dual sign it Limon/Topeka. (Control states are stupid; Salina has the same problem as Limon, being primarily navigational for I-135 traffic; Hays is the same class of city as Limon and even lacks the navigational justification.)

What do you feel about using Limon westbound on I-70?

If CDOT or KDOT used Limon on I-70 WB, I would immediately assume that it's an April Fools joke or something.

Yeah, about that... https://www.google.com/maps/@39.328904,-101.726079,3a,21.8y,35.81h,89.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAywG1jkUnpqHVI7F5B8kFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Heck, just outright signing "Texas"  would be really stupid in the grand scheme, but it would at least help the Texas-bound drivers. Limon does not.

How does it not help Texas-bound drivers? They should know they have to get off the Interstate at Limon. The sign says Limon. If that doesn't help them, they're the ones that are really stupid in the grand scheme...

Sorry I'm late to this party.

Limon is a horrible control city, just atrocious, eastbound and westbound. Limon is not the same class of city as Hays, Limon has around 2,000 people - Hays has ten times the population. Hays also has a university with 15,000 students, so most of the year 35,000 people live in Hays. And I wouldn't even advocate for Hays as the control out of Colorado.

The only possible argument for Limon is the junctions there, but even that argument fails. For eastbound, if one is driving from Denver to Amarillo, Dallas, Houston, basically anywhere in the eastern 2/3 of Texas, the fastest route is taking 25 south to US 87. The fastest all-interstate route is through Salina. West Texas? Stay on 25. Going to OKC? Salina is faster than Kit Carson by 30 minutes.

For westbound traffic, it is true that Limon is the split for Colorado Springs traffic. If that's the case, why not just sign 70 Denver/ Colorado Springs until Limon? Well it's easy to see why they don't do that. The two city control is clunkier, and I-70 doesn't actually go to Colorado Springs, plus Denver is much larger. If they wouldn't do a dual control like that (and they wouldn't) than the argument for signing Limon over Denver westbound completely falls flat.

How to fix it? Westbound is easy, just ignore Limon and sign Denver (as CDOT mainly does and as KDOT increasingly does, most of the old Limon signs have been replaced with Denver). I think Hays is too small to be a primary control city for such a long distance (340 miles), Salina is bigger and more significant junction-wise, but also too small to be signed for 434 miles. Topeka is the next option, but isn't a big enough city to be signed for 541 miles - it's no Memphis (57 Chicago). Kansas City is big enough, a proper metro area with a real airport and major league sports, so it could work despite the 600 mile length. However, that would force KDOT to ignore all if it's own cities, or it would require an awkward shift (like California signing Barstow on 15 south after Nevada signed LA).

I really think the only solution is "Kansas."   I don't like control states much either, but 70 out of Denver is the route to literally every Kansas destination. I'd put Kansas on all the pull through signs in the Denver metro area, then once out in the plains keep it similar to now. The mileage signs should have next exit/Limon/and alternate Hays and Salina on the third line until Limon, then next exit/Burlington/Hays or Salina. Once in Kansas I'd do next exit/Hays-Salina/Topeka and past Hays a simple next exit/Salina/Topeka.