Control Cities

[Flint1979]

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.

Population has nothing to do with selecting a control city. Limon is just fine as a control city. Just because it's a small city doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a control city.

[Roadgeekteen]

Control cities should be large in almost all cases.

[Flint1979]

Control cities should be large in almost all cases.

No they shouldn't

[Roadgeekteen]

Control cities should be large in almost all cases.

No they shouldn't

Why not?

[TravelingBethelite]

Control cities should be large in almost all cases.

No they shouldn't

Why not?

Why should they have to be?

[Roadgeekteen]

Control cities should be large in almost all cases.

No they shouldn't

Why not?

Why should they have to be?

So people unfamiliar with the area know where the road goes.

[Scott5114]

Topeka is the next option, but isn't a big enough city to be signed for 541 miles - it's no Memphis (57 Chicago). ... 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.

That's sort of silly–Topeka may not be huge but it is a state capital. Everyone should have heard of it in grade school. And since the other half of the list you're given to memorize is the states the capitals belong to, they would know it is the capital of Kansas. So putting Topeka up is, for most people, going to be just the same as putting up Kansas. May as well be more specific while you're doing that.

[sprjus4]

I'd go Denver, Topeka, Kansas City. Limon is simply too insignificant of a control city to have an effectiveness, at least when compared to major metropolitan areas that the majority of motorists along I-70 are destined to.

[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.

Population has nothing to do with selecting a control city. Limon is just fine as a control city. Just because it's a small city doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a control city.

Of course population plays a role. Bigger cities generate more traffic and are more likely to be people's ultimate destinations. They are also much more likely to be well-known, which assists long distance travelers. I pretty thoroughly debunked the "important junction"  aspect of Limon. What makes Limon "just fine" ?

[jaehak]

Topeka is the next option, but isn't a big enough city to be signed for 541 miles - it's no Memphis (57 Chicago). ... 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.

That's sort of silly–Topeka may not be huge but it is a state capital. Everyone should have heard of it in grade school. And since the other half of the list you're given to memorize is the states the capitals belong to, they would know it is the capital of Kansas. So putting Topeka up is, for most people, going to be just the same as putting up Kansas. May as well be more specific while you're doing that.

In theory yeah, but I think you're greatly overestimating the public's knowledge of states and capitals. Would you sign Salem over Portland in southern OR or northern CA? I don't think Topeka is big enough to be signed from over 500 miles away, especially when there is a much bigger and more well known city an hour down the road. Sign Kansas on the overheads in metro Denver, then sign Limon/Burlington on the second line and Hays/Salina on the third on Colorado mileage signs, then sign Hays/Salina as second line and Topeka as third line in KS.

[sprjus4]

Of course population plays a role. Bigger cities generate more traffic and are more likely to be people's ultimate destinations. They are also much more likely to be well-known, which assists long distance travelers. I pretty thoroughly debunked the "important junction"  aspect of Limon. What makes Limon "just fine" ?

My take from what he's said is that because there's no official guidelines that indicate a minimum size population for a control city, that every small town along the route should be signed, and major cities that would actually be valuable should be discounted.

[hotdogPi]

In theory yeah, but I think you're greatly overestimating the public's knowledge of states and capitals.

Concord NH is already signed over Manchester NH on I-93 in Massachusetts. This is despite Manchester being both larger and closer. (Note that I disagree with this decision.) I don't know whether it's because Concord is a state capital or because signing Concord allows the signs to be smaller from having a shorter name.

[JayhawkCO]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but not as directly.  If you think Limon should be removed as a control city AND you've been there, please chime in.  Just curious.

Chris

[thspfc]

Topeka is the next option, but isn't a big enough city to be signed for 541 miles - it's no Memphis (57 Chicago). ... 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.

That's sort of silly–Topeka may not be huge but it is a state capital. Everyone should have heard of it in grade school. And since the other half of the list you're given to memorize is the states the capitals belong to, they would know it is the capital of Kansas. So putting Topeka up is, for most people, going to be just the same as putting up Kansas. May as well be more specific while you're doing that.

Kansas City would make more sense than Topeka.

[thspfc]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but not as directly.  If you think Limon should be removed as a control city AND you've been there, please chime in.  Just curious.

Chris

In total I have spent more time in Colorado than in any other state besides Wisconsin, though I have never been to Limon specifically. But I would like to know. What is so exciting and important about it? It has like 5 hotels? Yeah, Kansas City has like 5,000. It has one Interstate and two US routes? Kansas City has four Interstates and 7 or 8 US routes.

[Flint1979]

Control cities should be large in almost all cases.

No they shouldn't

Why not?

Why should they have to be large cities?

[Flint1979]

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.

Population has nothing to do with selecting a control city. Limon is just fine as a control city. Just because it's a small city doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a control city.

Of course population plays a role. Bigger cities generate more traffic and are more likely to be people's ultimate destinations. They are also much more likely to be well-known, which assists long distance travelers. I pretty thoroughly debunked the "important junction"  aspect of Limon. What makes Limon "just fine" ?

No it doesn't. The population of a city has nothing to do with it being selected to be a control city. If that was the case then Limon wouldn't be a control city. The state's DOT select the control cities so if there is a junction that is near a city that city will most likely be the control city. It doesn't matter how big or small it is.

[Flint1979]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but not as directly.  If you think Limon should be removed as a control city AND you've been there, please chime in.  Just curious.

Chris

In total I have spent more time in Colorado than in any other state besides Wisconsin, though I have never been to Limon specifically. But I would like to know. What is so exciting and important about it? It has like 5 hotels? Yeah, Kansas City has like 5,000. It has one Interstate and two US routes? Kansas City has four Interstates and 7 or 8 US routes.

Kansas City is also over 500 miles away from Limon and an entire state away.

[thspfc]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but not as directly.  If you think Limon should be removed as a control city AND you've been there, please chime in.  Just curious.

Chris

In total I have spent more time in Colorado than in any other state besides Wisconsin, though I have never been to Limon specifically. But I would like to know. What is so exciting and important about it? It has like 5 hotels? Yeah, Kansas City has like 5,000. It has one Interstate and two US routes? Kansas City has four Interstates and 7 or 8 US routes.

Kansas City is also over 500 miles away from Limon and an entire state away.

If Kansas City's problem is that it's too far, then what's the problem with Kansas?

[jaehak]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but not as directly.  If you think Limon should be removed as a control city AND you've been there, please chime in.  Just curious.

Chris

I'm from Kansas. Driven through Limon many times. Absolutely should be removed.

[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.

Population has nothing to do with selecting a control city. Limon is just fine as a control city. Just because it's a small city doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a control city.

Of course population plays a role. Bigger cities generate more traffic and are more likely to be people's ultimate destinations. They are also much more likely to be well-known, which assists long distance travelers. I pretty thoroughly debunked the "important junction"  aspect of Limon. What makes Limon "just fine" ?

No it doesn't. The population of a city has nothing to do with it being selected to be a control city. If that was the case then Limon wouldn't be a control city. The state's DOT select the control cities so if there is a junction that is near a city that city will most likely be the control city. It doesn't matter how big or small it is.

Yes, it does. And again, what makes Limon "just fine?"  The 287 junction is meaningless unless you are getting on 70 east at Deer Trail or Agate, or unless you're going from Denver to Kit Carson (population 231).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Topeka is the next option, but isn't a big enough city to be signed for 541 miles - it's no Memphis (57 Chicago). ... 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.

That's sort of silly–Topeka may not be huge but it is a state capital. Everyone should have heard of it in grade school. And since the other half of the list you're given to memorize is the states the capitals belong to, they would know it is the capital of Kansas. So putting Topeka up is, for most people, going to be just the same as putting up Kansas. May as well be more specific while you're doing that.

Kansas City would make more sense than Topeka.

In today's hyper-mobile society, Topeka could almost be considered to be on the extreme fringe of the KC metro anyway, although I realize there is little evidence on the ground to suggest this between 435 and Topeka itself.

[Flint1979]

I wouldn't lose any sleep if CDOT went and updated their control city selection and took Limon off the list. Salina would probably be the choice though. But I also don't see any reason to remove Limon from the list. CDOT probably wanted to use a city in their own state.

[JayhawkCO]

Yes, it does. And again, what makes Limon "just fine?"  The 287 junction is meaningless unless you are getting on 70 east at Deer Trail or Agate, or unless you're going from Denver to Kit Carson (population 231).

Unless perhaps, you're driving from Denver to Dallas.  Many (if not most) truckers take US287 instead of I-70>I-135->I-35. 

Chris

[billpa]

I wouldn't mind seeing a national standard that allows for just one big control city on the major overhead signs along with less important cities and towns on a mileage sign after each interchange.
There would be three cities on the mileage sign.
Two of the towns listed would be 'secondary' control cities like Limon and the third would be the major pull-through destination city.

I've also, helpfully, attached a photo of the Limon skyline.

Pixel 2