Best and Worst States at signing concurrencies

[Some one]

Interstate/Interstate, US Highway/US Highway, State Highway/State Highway, Interstate/US Highway, Interstate/US Highway/State Highway, etc.

In Texas, it really depends on the region (and how new the interstate is). While San Antonio and Fort Worth typically signs concurrencies, you're hard-pressed to see a US Highway signed on an interstate in Dallas and Houston (with I-69/US 59 being an exception).

[Flint1979]

Michigan does pretty good at it. There is a 73 mile concurrency with I-75 and US-23 between Flint and Standish that is marked at every interchange for both highways. Even with it having both highways it's only called I-75 and never US-23 in this stretch.

Further up M-55 has a concurrency with I-75 and it is marked as well and likewise only goes by I-75.

I can't think of any that aren't marked. Michigan does pretty well with signage although some of the US-10 signs for the Lodge Freeway didn't get replaced with M-10 signs until into the 2000's.

[roadfro]

Nevada only has I/US and US/US concurrencies, and the overlaps are fully signed.

Actually, Nevada does also have I-80 BUS loops that overlap with US routes and/or state highways, with the level of BR signage varying depending on the route.

[hbelkins]

Tennessee is awful.

[Max Rockatansky]

Surprisingly California is pretty good at signing multiplexes for the most part.  I noticed some sort overlaps on freeways like with CA 99/CA 59/CA 140 aren't signed aside from junctions.  Usually those instances are short enough that reassurance shields on the freeway probably don't matter. 

[ozarkman417]

Arkansas: Signing congruencies is for losers. Why not have eight sections of one highway instead?

[GaryV]

Michigan does pretty good at it.

I agree.  The only thing that is sometimes missing is when a state-designated multi-county route joins a State or US route, they may omit the reassurance signs for the county route.  The sign for the turn when the county route takes off on its own is there, just not the reassurance while they are concurrent.

[TEG24601]

Indiana seems pretty consistent.  My family lives in and around Delphi, and they were great about signing US 421/SR-18/25/39 and the appropriate breakoffs of each route.


However, their "elimination" of routes at major metropolitan areas, like Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, and Lafayette leaves a lot to be desired.  To basically not sign a route or an alternative across a city is irresponsible.  Sure navigation systems can solve this, but it won't use the routes that are built to the standards for traffic, whereas signing an alternate or setting up concurrencies, would be better for everyone.
---
Washington seems pretty consistent, except for the SR 509/99 concurrency.

[Flint1979]

Michigan does pretty good at it.

I agree.  The only thing that is sometimes missing is when a state-designated multi-county route joins a State or US route, they may omit the reassurance signs for the county route.  The sign for the turn when the county route takes off on its own is there, just not the reassurance while they are concurrent.

Yeah I've noticed that in the areas that have county highways. There aren't any county highways at all in my area.

[Flint1979]

Indiana seems pretty consistent.  My family lives in and around Delphi, and they were great about signing US 421/SR-18/25/39 and the appropriate breakoffs of each route.


However, their "elimination" of routes at major metropolitan areas, like Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, and Lafayette leaves a lot to be desired.  To basically not sign a route or an alternative across a city is irresponsible.  Sure navigation systems can solve this, but it won't use the routes that are built to the standards for traffic, whereas signing an alternate or setting up concurrencies, would be better for everyone.
---
Washington seems pretty consistent, except for the SR 509/99 concurrency.

That is one thing I hate about Indy otherwise I have had a lot of fun there. I don't get why every single through route other than 65 and 70 are routed around Indy and not through it.

The worst state that I've experienced is Tennessee.

[Rothman]

What about Georgia?  It's an unholy mess.

[hobsini2]

Illinois is very good at cosigning Interstates highways and US highways. See I-39/90/US 51. However, there is one instance I know of where the stat highway is not cosigned with the interstate. IL 56 officially is on I-88 between IL 31 and the IL 56 freeway exit. The only mention of it being on I-88 is at Route 31. At the end of the Route 56 freeway going eastbound, it is not mentioned at all.

[formulanone]

What about Georgia?  It's an unholy mess.

Georgia is an overdose of unnecessary US Route and State multiplexes, though at least consistent at signing overlapping state routes. So it's unnecessary for SR 1 or 3, but useful for following SR 26, 77, 92, or 166 (as examples).

Alabama is pretty good at recognizing multiplexes and where they join and/or leave. There's a few places like Montgomery and Dothan which overdo it. The only conspicuously absent multiplex is US 31 and I-65 from Athens to the Tennessee state line, though I think nobody really notices except for us roadgeeks.

[mrcmc888]

Virginia and North Carolina are good about signing multiplexes.  Tennessee is not.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I'd say Ohio is pretty good, though the downtowns of the 3-Cs can be sporadic.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Texas and Wyoming: good.
Colorado and New Mexico: bad

Not that the missing routes are ones that impair navigation, though. It keeps the clutter down.

[US 89]

Might as well go through each type for Utah:

-I/I: only two, both signed very well.
-I/US: highly variable. They range from the extremely well-signed I-70/US 89 to the almost completely unsigned I-80/US 189.
-US/US: these are very well signed except for US 40/189, which omits 189 signage from the interchange roads. I'm not complaining about that though, because 189 used to be omitted entirely on that segment.
-I/SR: it's unclear whether SR 30 runs concurrent with I-15 and I-84 or there's a gap in the route, due to how Utah legislative descriptions for state routes work. If the concurrencies do exist, they're completely unsigned.
-US/SR: Like the interstate concurrencies above, it's questionable whether SR 30 has a silent concurrency with US 89 or if there's a gap in the route, although there is some signage in Logan suggesting the concurrency does exist. This category also includes 89/71 and 89/194, both of which are the result of interchange reconstructions and have quite poor signage anyway.
-SR/SR: there are three potential locations for these - 68/85, 68/48, and 118/120. 68/85 has multiple sets of dual reassurance shields, 68/48 is implicit from directional signs, and 118/120 has shitty signage all around.

In addition, almost every business route is concurrent with a state route. BL signage is sporadic, most commonly found near the endpoints of the route.

[DJ Particle]

Minnesota tends to (usually) not sign routes that spend long stretches as concurrencies, but there are some exceptions.  A list of signed and unsigned concurrencies I know of in MN:

Signed:
I-94/I-694
I-35E/US-10
I-35W/US-10
US-10/US-61
I-694/US-10
MN-55/MN-62
US-71/MN-23
US-52/MN-55

Unsigned:
I-94/US-52
I-94/US-12
I-94/MN-55
I-394/US-12
US-169/Hennepin CSAH-1
Hennepin CSAH-81/Hennepin CSAH-66

[froggie]

Concur with a comment upthread about Arkansas and their abhorrant lack of concurrency signage.  I'd argue they're worse than Tennessee.  Tennessee's signage issues are primarily limited to the four largest cities...but even there they'll still post some concurrencies.

As long as the state route is not the underlying hidden route associated with a US highway (i.e. US 98 = AL 42), Alabama is pretty good about signing concurrencies.

DJ mentioned the "long stretches as concurrencies" in Minnesota.  That's entirely limited to 94/52, 94/12, and 394/12, though even with these three concurrencies there's a few signs indicating the concurrency.  Otherwise, MnDOT signs concurrencies pretty well.

Regarding DJ's last two mentions with county routes, the county routes in question have gaps and are not continuous, so no concurrency officially exists.

[jeffandnicole]

NJDOT is so-so.  Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency.  Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.

This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 .  It's 130 South TO 322 West here.  There's also 4 lanes here, not 3.  Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.

The traffic light street sign blades are also hit and miss (often a miss) in regards to concurrencies, but they do have this triple concurrency signed! https://goo.gl/maps/aMaiPL9rn4dSrBQx5 which may be the only place along the concurrency where all 3 route numbers are signed.

[roadman65]

Florida just started signing other roads on interstates with the exception of US 19 on I-275, only because US 19 was there first and it is the only water crossing of the Tampa Bay for the area.   However, US 1 and US 17 were both moved onto I-95 in Miami and Jacksonville and both yet have gotten shields for their new alignments.

NJ where I grew up was good about signing I-78 and US 22 from Still Valley to Clinton as US 22 appeared everyplace that I-78 did, but some still need desiring though.  The US 9 concurrency in two places on the Parkway used to be good about it but recently the NJTA forgot about them, and across Great Egg Harbor I cannot say as I have not been on it since 2005 and then it was not official even though Beeslys Point Bridge had been shut down at the time.  The George Washington Bridge does not sign US 1 nor US 9 in many places and back in the 1970's it was worse than it is today.  US 1, 9, and 46 had no direction banners on US 9W so it was implied that all three US routes began from the ramp onto that concurrency, but now I see on GSV that was fixed.

Texas is good and bad at the same time.  San Antonio does a great job signing both US 87 and 281 on interstate freeways, but Dallas and Houston both do not sign US routes on the freeways signed as interstates.  Fort Worth does sign US 287 (or at least from IH 30) and from Alex's Amarillo photos I see that part of the state does sign concurrencies.   US 190 is signed along newly designated IH 14 and Texarkana does sign US 59 well on IH 369 (in fact ramps ignore IH 369, but sign US 59 well) but some ramp signs still omit US 59 on IH 30 (probably cause that move was done since 2000 as it used to go through the city originally).

Delaware was good with US 40 up until they redid the US 13 and I-295 exchange and now US 40 signs for NJ have not been copied to the new signs there.  I do not know how well US 202 is signed on I-95, but DE 1 and US 13 are signed well.  In fact DelDOT during route changes would imply concurrencies until the drivers got used to the new alignment. For example DE 896 before being moved to end at US 13 in Boyd's Corner was given a concurrency to Blackbird along US 13 as that was the original end of that highway before it was taken out of Middletown.
Also when I-95 was going to moved to I-495, the route was signed for both 95 and 495 as to get drivers used to that change that never happened as I-95 was moved back after they changed their minds.

Pennsylvania is real good about concurrencies, but in Pittsburgh US 22 and 30 have vanished at the I-376 and 279 exchange though.  I-376 is signed solo and no mention of those two even though the Penn Lincoln Parkway was both US 22 & 30 before I-376 was commissioned.

[briantroutman]

Pennsylvania is real good about concurrencies, but in Pittsburgh US 22 and 30 have vanished at the I-376 and 279 exchange though.  I-376 is signed solo and no mention of those two even though the Penn Lincoln Parkway was both US 22 & 30 before I-376 was commissioned.

It's not signed on overhead guides through the concurrency, but US 22-30 motorists are given notice as they approach I-376. Given the already intense (but basically unavoidable) overloading of sign messages at The Point, I think not including US 22-30 on guide signage is appropriate in this case. For what it's worth, US 22-30 shields are included fairly consistently on reassurance signage through the concurrency.

[roadman65]

NJDOT is so-so.  Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency.  Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.

This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 .  It's 130 South TO 322 West here.  There's also 4 lanes here, not 3.  Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.

The traffic light street sign blades are also hit and miss (often a miss) in regards to concurrencies, but they do have this triple concurrency signed! https://goo.gl/maps/aMaiPL9rn4dSrBQx5 which may be the only place along the concurrency where all 3 route numbers are signed.

NJDOT is so-so.  Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency.  Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.

This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 .  It's 130 South TO 322 West here.  There's also 4 lanes here, not 3.  Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.

NJDOT is so-so.  Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency.  Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.

This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 .  It's 130 South TO 322 West here.  There's also 4 lanes here, not 3.  Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.

The traffic light street sign blades are also hit and miss (often a miss) in regards to concurrencies, but they do have this triple concurrency signed! https://goo.gl/maps/aMaiPL9rn4dSrBQx5 which may be the only place along the concurrency where all 3 route numbers are signed.

Yes that one is funny you should mention being that 130 was there first and for many decades even after 295 was granted to be there, NJDOT still used exit guides remaining from the solo 130 days with no advance other than NEXT RIGHT and the at exit arrow signs.  The signs were like on the non freeway with street names and destinations and not given larger ones until the 1980's when the current freeway set up was constructed.

[interstate73]

I do love how NJDOT signed 1&9 with a combined ampersand shield (or with a dash), but it seems they are mostly transitioning to separate shields

[skluth]

Surprisingly California is pretty good at signing multiplexes for the most part.  I noticed some sort overlaps on freeways like with CA 99/CA 59/CA 140 aren't signed aside from junctions.  Usually those instances are short enough that reassurance shields on the freeway probably don't matter.

They're good except when they don't sign the highway whatsoever because maintenance has switched from the state to some local authority.