US 79 with US 80

[roadman65]

Noticing from my recent trip to the part of Louisiana along where I-20 parallels US 79 that signage there is quite odd.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48438843016/in/dateposted-public/
This sign suggests that US 80 goes east only along with LA 526, but I think the sign implies that it goes both ways and just that the state highway designation is east as this is that particular route's western terminus.

However, I noticed that US 79 is not only forgotten (many place where two routes are concurrent is common for one to be ignored, yes its old) but the fact is that the next exit is signed for US 79 North while the following is for US 79 South.  I know the US 79 South exit is signed for the last time the two routes parallel because of the fact that US 79 leaving I-20 is a major corridor itself and is a major route in Texas (hence the US 79 South exit is signed for Carthage, TX), but should not US 79 North really be signed here?  Or better yet not at all along this stretch as those looking to go north would have exited previously where US 79 first begins to run along side this particular interstate?

[cjk374]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.

I can't believe you didn't get a shot of any of the fractional US 79/80 shields.

IMO, US 79 should only be listed as TO US 79 at exit 3, since US 79 does not cross over the interstate here...like it does at exit 5.

[roadman65]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.

I can't believe you didn't get a shot of any of the fractional US 79/80 shields.

IMO, US 79 should only be listed as TO US 79 at exit 3, since US 79 does not cross over the interstate here...like it does at exit 5.

Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.  SC does it along I-520 at US 1 & 78 concurrency leaving out the latter.

Some leave off the TO in many places.  Many places of that scenario are changing over and adding TO signs where the road does not meet directly.

[roadman65]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.

I can't believe you didn't get a shot of any of the fractional US 79/80 shields.

IMO, US 79 should only be listed as TO US 79 at exit 3, since US 79 does not cross over the interstate here...like it does at exit 5.

Exit 5 has it signed as if its for US 79 North there, however I understand the logic of it all.  Traffic for Carthage, TX and beyond using US 79 South is better to use LA 169 at Exit 3.  You save a few minutes as US 79 proper (along US 80) is a poorer quality road compared to the 2 miles of freeway of I-20.   MDTA used to do it with MD 2 on the Harbor Tunnel Thruway in Baltimore.  The direct exit for MD 2 was only signed for Brooklyn at one time, despite it being the actual exit for MD 2.  The following exit for now I-895 Spur was signed for MD 2 instead as I-895 Spur connects to MD 2 later on beyond the town of Brooklyn.  So MDTA reasoning was for through traffic using MD 2 for Annapolis and the Bay Bridge would bypass some local congestion while alleviating more through Brooklyn and allowing a more faster and efficient way to reach both places further south on MD 2.  Now, MD 2 was replaced with I-97 so that doesn't apply nowadays as pretty much all of MD 2 from Baltimore to Annapolis is congested due to the last two decades of sprawl in Anne Arundel County.

But it has been done for years using guide signs to show you a better way with simple signage.  PA 611 in Monroe County, PA is the same on I-80 as you have multiple exits for PA 611 south from I-80, so traffic destined for PA 611 S Bound to points south of Stroudsburg are directed there by leaving the PA 611 shields off the first PA 611 south exit so that EB to SB does not have to go through Downtown Stroudsburg and pick the route up after it.   

Yes it should be La 169 TO US 79 South!

[bugo]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

[US71]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

There a section of 71/59 straddling the State Line north of Texarkana that only has a 59 sign, but that's probably a TXDOT error not ARDOT.

A few years ago, 59 was still cosigned along NB 71 south of State Line Rd.

[bwana39]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

Primarily because the concurrency in Arkansas is Temporary (Since the 1930's)...  59 was supposed to follow Texas SH-8 from Linden to the Arkansas Line and Arkansas SH-41 to DeQueen. 59 was originally supposed to track what is now US 259 through eastern Oklahoma. Basically south from Smithville then to DeQueen. It wound up going through Texarkana because of the Index Bridge.

[US71]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

Primarily because the concurrency in Arkansas is Temporary (Since the 1930's)...  59 was supposed to follow Texas SH-8 from Linden to the Arkansas Line and Arkansas SH-41 to DeQueen. 59 was originally supposed to track what is now US 259 through eastern Oklahoma. Basically south from Smithville then to DeQueen. It wound up going through Texarkana because of the Index Bridge.

At one time, 59 followed 67 to Maud, then south (later to be TX 8) to Linden.  I believe FM 125 at Linden is old 59. I'm not sure when that changed.

[bugo]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

Primarily because the concurrency in Arkansas is Temporary (Since the 1930's)...  59 was supposed to follow Texas SH-8 from Linden to the Arkansas Line and Arkansas SH-41 to DeQueen. 59 was originally supposed to track what is now US 259 through eastern Oklahoma. Basically south from Smithville then to DeQueen. It wound up going through Texarkana because of the Index Bridge.

Where did you get this this information? The only thing I've found any evidence for is that ODOT at one time had plans to reroute US 59 down US 259 when it was under construction. I have never heard anything about US 59 following AR 41/TX 8.

[US71]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

Primarily because the concurrency in Arkansas is Temporary (Since the 1930's)...  59 was supposed to follow Texas SH-8 from Linden to the Arkansas Line and Arkansas SH-41 to DeQueen. 59 was originally supposed to track what is now US 259 through eastern Oklahoma. Basically south from Smithville then to DeQueen. It wound up going through Texarkana because of the Index Bridge.

That's a long Temporary. Someone must have decided to make it permanent.

[bwana39]

The EAST direction does apply only to LA 526. I have never been a fan of these signs on I-20, because they are confusing and the failing to mention of US 79's existence here just flies in the face of consistency. But then again, signing concurrencies seems to be a dying art form.
Arkansas does the same with US 59 along US 71.

Where is US 59 not signed along US 71? I grew up near that duplex and there's only one place that there is a 71 sign and no 59 sign, and that's on WB AR 8 in Mena. It has said "JCT US 71" with no 59 shield as long as I can remember.

Primarily because the concurrency in Arkansas is Temporary (Since the 1930's)...  59 was supposed to follow Texas SH-8 from Linden to the Arkansas Line and Arkansas SH-41 to DeQueen. 59 was originally supposed to track what is now US 259 through eastern Oklahoma. Basically south from Smithville then to DeQueen. It wound up going through Texarkana because of the Index Bridge.

Where did you get this this information? The only thing I've found any evidence for is that ODOT at one time had plans to reroute US 59 down US 259 when it was under construction. I have never heard anything about US 59 following AR 41/TX 8.

Original Description per Administrative Circular No. 016-1944 (TXDOT)

03/01/1935 - Maud 40, Jefferson 18, Marshall 28, Carthage 28, Center 24, San Augustine 51, Jasper 21, Kibbyville 19, Buna 15, Silsbee 20, Beaumont 19, Port Arthur.  (It is understood that the location of US 59 between Page, Oklahoma, and Maud, Texas, as given in this description, is temporary awaiting a more direct route between these points so that it will not be necessary to have US 59 and US 71 traverse the same territory, which will greatly shorten the distance for US 59 between these points.)

[bugo]

Original Description per Administrative Circular No. 016-1944 (TXDOT)

03/01/1935 - Maud 40, Jefferson 18, Marshall 28, Carthage 28, Center 24, San Augustine 51, Jasper 21, Kibbyville 19, Buna 15, Silsbee 20, Beaumont 19, Port Arthur.  (It is understood that the location of US 59 between Page, Oklahoma, and Maud, Texas, as given in this description, is temporary awaiting a more direct route between these points so that it will not be necessary to have US 59 and US 71 traverse the same territory, which will greatly shorten the distance for US 59 between these points.)

That says nothing about US 59 following AR 41/TX 8. It does not prove your claim.

[US71]

Original Description per Administrative Circular No. 016-1944 (TXDOT)

03/01/1935 - Maud 40, Jefferson 18, Marshall 28, Carthage 28, Center 24, San Augustine 51, Jasper 21, Kibbyville 19, Buna 15, Silsbee 20, Beaumont 19, Port Arthur.  (It is understood that the location of US 59 between Page, Oklahoma, and Maud, Texas, as given in this description, is temporary awaiting a more direct route between these points so that it will not be necessary to have US 59 and US 71 traverse the same territory, which will greatly shorten the distance for US 59 between these points.)

That says nothing about US 59 following AR 41/TX 8. It does not prove your claim.

Not 41, but US 67 and TX 8.

67 from Texarkana to Maud, TX 8 south of Maud.  FM 125 through Linden appears to be old 8 (or 59)