Best and Worst States at signing concurrencies

[doorknob60]

Idaho is far from perfect, especially at interchanges (usually only showing the main route unless the interchange involves the multiplex entering/exiting), but they're pretty good. These are all around the Boise area because that's mostly what I'm familiar with, but it's also where most of the multiplexes are, especially the ones involving >2 highways.


GSV Link


GSV Link


GSV Link


GSV Link

This one the multiplexed routes are still represented, but on a sign off to the side that most people wouldn't notice.

GSV Link

[TheStranger]

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.

Trying to think of examples in NorCal:

Route 84/US 101 in Redwood City is decently signed
Route 92/Route 35 west of San Mateo is signed okay
US 101/Route 1 north of the Golden Gate Bridge is well signed
Route 1/I-280 in Daly City is very well signed
I-80/I-580 along the Eastshore Freeway in Emeryville is very well signed
Not sure how well I-880/Route 84 is signed
Route 84/Route 238 in Union City is I think signed somewhat.
Route 152 and US 101 near Gilroy, not sure how well this is signed via trailblazers.  Though the concurrency is pretty well established and not a route gap along the 1980s new build 101 freeway alignment

in the Sacramento area:
When it existed from 1982-2016, Business 80 and US 50 were generally well signed in the eastbound direction from I-80 to Route 99, but mostly signed just as Business 80 westbound.  Northbound Route 99 had been signed decently between the Oak Park Interchange and I-5.
I-5/Route 99 was signed well in the 90s through the downtown section and into Natomas, though 99 has been deemphasized on that stretch of road since.
Route 193 along I-80 is not considered a signed concurrency
Route 16 prior to being curtailed from the West Sacramento alignment in 1984, I don't think was signed at all between downtown Sacramento and the College Greens neighborhood.
Route 113 and I-80 between Dixon and Davis has been well signed since the early 2000s

Other areas:

US 101/Route 156 in Prunedale is very well signed
Route 152/Route 33 in Santa Nella is well signed
Route 1/Route 68 in Monterey is decently signed

[bassoon1986]

This is one thing Louisiana does well. Although I wish they would place the two highway shields next to one another. There are many places, near Baton Rouge for example, where there may be a US 190 shield and then further back a lone LA 1 shield. But it may be like that every other set of shields. Together then not together.


iPhone

[GaryV]

Has Michigan signed M-43 along the new concurrency with US-131 between Plainwell and Kalamazoo?

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/15305077686/in/album-72157646995008167/
This is the way Florida signs the US 19 & 98 and ALT US 27 concurrency from Chiefland to Perry. Only ALT applies to US 27 while the other two are mainlines.  ALT US 27 should be on the bottom or another set of directions between the US 27 and US 19 shields.

Kanas is no better than Florida either.  US 400 is not an ALT route here at all!  US 69 is at this point, but not the out of place number route.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/47220706711/in/album-72157646995008167/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30516157503/in/album-72157646995008167/
Then Michigan here in Claire with one large shield and one small shield where both US 127 and US 10 concur.

[TheGrassGuy]

NJ is good, I guess.

[OCGuy81]

Oregon isn't very good.

The best they seem to do is the I-5/OR 99E multiplex between Salem and Albany. I-84/US 30?? Meh.

You almost NEVER see the duplexed route on sign assemblies approaching the highways. For example, approaching I-5 via OR 22 in Salem?? You'd never know 99E is duplexed

[jeffandnicole]

...295/130 Concurrency...

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.

Hell, they even maintained driveway access from 295 to the existing businesses along that route!  They were pissed when NJDOT said, look, we can't have driveways on an interstate highway!

I still debate that the frontage roads that were built along Exits 21/22 weren't the best of designs.  Probably should've made them one-way, rather than 2 way.  It's fairly common to watch a vehicle going the direction which will eventually dead-end.  Doesn't help that they gave the same road name (Crown Point Road) to both frontage roads!

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

I personally liked "1&9" the best.  I thought they were mostly using "1-9", with the NJ Turnpike generally being the only agency going with separate shields.

[Ben114]

Massachusetts is really good.

[3467]

Illinois even signs county road concurrency. At least one on Illinois 336 110 which is now 
a useless one. 336 is anachronistic. I wonder if that is why the tollway downplays 56 because it's really more a spur to get to 47 34 and 30 and really not related to the road through Dupage. 

[Konza]

In New Mexico, on I-10 west of Las Cruces, you would never know that you are also on US Routes 70 and 180.

Ditto for US 54 where it is concurrent with I-40 from Tucumcari to Santa Rosa.

[Max Rockatansky]

In New Mexico, on I-10 west of Las Cruces, you would never know that you are also on US Routes 70 and 180.

Ditto for US 54 where it is concurrent with I-40 fro Tucumcari to Santa Rosa.

Hell, you wouldn't know that you were on US 85 since it isn't signed on I-25. 

[Flint1979]

Michigan even signs the business routes on routes that it follows a concurrency. An example is Business US-127 and M-46 in St. Louis.

[roadman65]

...295/130 Concurrency...

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.

Hell, they even maintained driveway access from 295 to the existing businesses along that route!  They were pissed when NJDOT said, look, we can't have driveways on an interstate highway!

I still debate that the frontage roads that were built along Exits 21/22 weren't the best of designs.  Probably should've made them one-way, rather than 2 way.  It's fairly common to watch a vehicle going the direction which will eventually dead-end.  Doesn't help that they gave the same road name (Crown Point Road) to both frontage roads!

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

I personally liked "1&9" the best.  I thought they were mostly using "1-9", with the NJ Turnpike generally being the only agency going with separate shields.

I remember the motel that was near Mount Royal that was a RIRO and then the jersey freeway part around Red Bank.  If I remember correctly NJ did sign I-295 separate from US 130 on reassurance shields post interchanges at the time.  Of course, not many Interstate and other highways concurring other than I-78 and US 22 (signed pretty well) and I-80 & US 206 (though too short to be measured, though the EB US 46 ramp omits US 206 S Bound). 

There though is in NJ consistency on signing as all concurrencies are stacked on shield assemblies, however the US 130 and NJ 33 overlap does something that NY usually does and omits directional banners and features the reassurance markers direction-less.   Also at one time ( I do not know if NJDOT changed this) in Wayne, the US 202 and NJ 23 overlap had US 202 on the bottom and not on top as the MUTCD states which all the other US and state concurrencies with the US routes first including US 202 with NJ 31 in Hunterdon County.

[DJ Particle]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

[ilpt4u]

I wonder if that is why the tollway downplays 56 because it's really more a spur to get to 47 34 and 30 and really not related to the road through Dupage.

ISTHA might downplay the IL 56 overlap with I-88 and the the IL 56 Spur Freeway to Sugar Grove, perhaps because that section is the old Tollway Mainline? The west end of Toll US 30, reconnecting to Free US 30

And not related? One could quite easily argue that I-88, between Aurora and Oak Brook, makes a very nice Toll Bypass of the same corridor that surface highway IL 56/Butterfield Rd makes between those points

[Bickendan]

Oregon isn't very good.

The best they seem to do is the I-5/OR 99E multiplex between Salem and Albany. I-84/US 30?? Meh.

You almost NEVER see the duplexed route on sign assemblies approaching the highways. For example, approaching I-5 via OR 22 in Salem?? You'd never know 99E is duplexed

I believe the reason 30 doesn't get cosigned with 84 is because of 30H running nearby.

[FrCorySticha]

Montana seems to do a good job of posting concurrencies, to the point where you can get such wonderful sign salad as this outside of Great Falls. MT 3 is the direct route between Great Falls and Billings, but is mostly concurrent on US 12, US 191 and US 87. Yet, Montana is good about signing it the entire way.

The only miss that I know of is the short concurrency between US 2 and US 191 in Malta. The two run together to cross the Milk River (only a distance of about 1000 feet), but is signed as "TO US 191". I'm sure there are more, but my impression is that there are very few "forgotten" concurrencies.

[roadman]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route.  Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.

[hotdogPi]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route.  Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.

1A and 3A are pretty long.

[roadman]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route.  Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.

1A and 3A are pretty long.

True.  However, my point still stands.

[DJ Particle]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route.  Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.

1A and 3A are pretty long.

True.  However, my point still stands.

Oh, I get your point...just saying they don't sign it  *heh*

[ftballfan]

Has Michigan signed M-43 along the new concurrency with US-131 between Plainwell and Kalamazoo?

I haven't checked along US-131, but M-43 is signed along M-89 between Plainwell and Richland

[Rothman]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

Heh.  And then there's when they post them with one route shield behind the other (e.g., MA 9 and MA 116 WB in Hadley).  At least they posted it.

[deathtopumpkins]

Massachusetts is really good.

Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.

US 1/MA 1A says hi: https://goo.gl/maps/9KCYy8pcSdPKubzm9