Why should I-94 W point to Chicago instead of Kalamazoo-Battle Creek?

[Jimaz]

There's a Springfield in Illinois and another in Missouri.

I once found myself driving toward the wrong one. Doh!

[canuck]

You probably shouldn't be on the autobahn without a car.

I'm old enough to have at least learned how to read a map. I was the map reader on family road trips when I was a kid and I still always used the control city.

Yes, I used to have a happy time trying to fold
maps away in the glove compatment. Never got that right.

[wolverine]

Based on some other posts, I've decided to come up with these quick-and-dirty modifications...

Well, you can't have 3 control cities on one sign.

Also, to follow up on my post from a long time ago, control destinations in Chicago are changing. Signs will now say "Milwaukee" instead of Wisconsin and the signs saying "West...Northwest...Southwest Suburbs" are being removed.

The only explanation I still have from road geeks about Detroit's absence is the following:

- There's a big confluence of interstates right south of Chicago that go to really big metro areas. 94 onto Detroit, 65 onto Indy and 80 / 90 onto Toledo and Cleveland. That confluence is in Indiana, and there's pretty even balance of dispersion.
- Building on that point, it's not Chicago's responsibility to favor any particular metro. Sure it makes sense for people in Michigan to say "hey the signs should say Detroit!" But a lot of other cities do also. Chicago says, "not my problem, talk to Indiana for directions, they have all the interchanges" and therefore the signs say Indiana.
- Opposite is true in Michigan. There are no major interestate confluences to large metro areas. Toledo and Flint is accounted for on 75 and Lansing on 96, and Ann Arbor is incidentally close to Detroit and need not be mentioned. If they did, what about Dearborn? It just gets too fussy. The point of control signage is to be simple and logical,