Confusing Concurrencies

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Google Maps doesn't show it and signage is severely lacking, which is probably why.  RI-114 has a crazily circuitous route through town, such that both directions of travel officially use the same short one-way segment of Broadway.

OpenStreetMap shows this clearly. Personally I would realign Northbound RI 114 to go directly from School St to Broadway, and Southbound RI 114 along Roosevelt Ave, Main St and Water St, even if that means losing a direct connection to I-95.

[sparker]

California 88 and 89 have a short concurrency.

Also 101/1. Are they even concurrent? Doesn't 1 just have gaps?

US-101 and CA-1 are concurrent for a stretch from Ventura to a little north of Santa Barbara (and just misses having one with I-10 too).

they're not signed though, I think

Legislatively, there are no concurrencies of US 101 and CA 1; 1 ends at one end of the "concurrency" and begins at the other.  Between Oxnard (previously from Oxnard Blvd. but ostensibly now at Rice Avenue, although signage there doesn't seem to be extant) and the Seacliff exit above Ventura is a "quasi-concurrency", with a couple of BGS's showing both route numbers, but no reassurance shields along the road.  Between Rincon and Las Cruces (through Santa Barbara) there is no actual concurrency but simply a gap in CA 1.  The concurrency of the two routes further north between Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo is fully signed with both routes' shields, as is the concurrency north of the Golden Gate Bridge in Marin County.  As with most things Caltrans, actual signage practice is largely dependent upon the whims and policies of the individual district. 

[jakeroot]

This may be a stretch, but the WA-167/WA-161 concurrency east of Tacoma can get a little confusing. From a distance, the 7 and 1 don't look that different. But worse, Hwy 161 and 167, while both running north-south, run in different directions through here. The concurrency is positioned east/west. So while travelling EB, you're going south on 167 but north on 161. Travelling WB, you're going north on 167 but south on 161. Luckily, it's an extremely short concurrency, with the two joining each other only between two interchanges. So you shouldn't get confused. But the signs are kind of funny. Concurrencies aren't particularly common up here. Wrong-way concurrencies are rarer than hen's teeth.

[wanderer2575]

I-69 / 96

Yeah, I get these mixed up very easily–just looking at a map, even.  If I were in charge of posting shields at their interchanges, I would probably have dreams at night about putting them on the wrong signs.

They once did, on northbound I-69.  Back in 2011, I think.  Should be an I-96 shield on this sign (it was eventually fixed):

[Shoppingforfood]

I-69 / 96

Yeah, I get these mixed up very easily–just looking at a map, even.  If I were in charge of posting shields at their interchanges, I would probably have dreams at night about putting them on the wrong signs.

They once did, on northbound I-69.  Back in 2011, I think.  Should be an I-96 shield on this sign (it was eventually fixed):

OOPS!

[inkyatari]

They once did, on northbound I-69.  Back in 2011, I think.  Should be an I-96 shield on this sign (it was eventually fixed):

Mind blown.

[SD Mapman]

Or how about any wrong way multplex where you are traveling say north and for some reason a route heading south is multiplexed or east and west same thing. I've seen this before and it's probably confusing due to the fact that if it's dark out and you see both north and south you'd be confused on which direction you were really going.

It's even better when it's a N/S wrong-way concurrency but the road itself is E/W aligned.

I see that and I raise you a pointless N/S wrong-way concurrency on an E/W alignment: here

[Flint1979]

I-69 / 96

Yeah, I get these mixed up very easily–just looking at a map, even.  If I were in charge of posting shields at their interchanges, I would probably have dreams at night about putting them on the wrong signs.

They once did, on northbound I-69.  Back in 2011, I think.  Should be an I-96 shield on this sign (it was eventually fixed):

That flat out blows my mind that they made that error. I never saw this one or else I would have known about it right away since I notice things like that. Should be I-96 not I-69, I-69's control cities at that point would be Flint and Fort Wayne considering this looks to be in the Lansing area.

[kphoger]

Hey, it's just a combination reassurance sign/advance junction sign.

[Flint1979]

I-69 / 96

Yeah, I get these mixed up very easily–just looking at a map, even.  If I were in charge of posting shields at their interchanges, I would probably have dreams at night about putting them on the wrong signs.

They once did, on northbound I-69.  Back in 2011, I think.  Should be an I-96 shield on this sign (it was eventually fixed):

I looked on Google Maps and couldn't see the error on StreetView. It goes as far back as 2007 too and I saw a June 2011 photo with it saying I-96. Is this where I-69 comes into Lansing from the south near Lake Interstate and the train tracks off to the west of the highway?

[wanderer2575]

I-69 / 96

Yeah, I get these mixed up very easily–just looking at a map, even.  If I were in charge of posting shields at their interchanges, I would probably have dreams at night about putting them on the wrong signs.

They once did, on northbound I-69.  Back in 2011, I think.  Should be an I-96 shield on this sign (it was eventually fixed):

I looked on Google Maps and couldn't see the error on StreetView. It goes as far back as 2007 too and I saw a June 2011 photo with it saying I-96. Is this where I-69 comes into Lansing from the south near Lake Interstate and the train tracks off to the west of the highway?

Correct; this is south of Lansing near Lake Interstate, just north of Old US-27.  I'm guessing at the 2011 date as that's the timestamp on my computer file.  But that could be when I saved a copy during a reorganization, so it might actually have been earlier.  And of course it might have been fixed in the field before GSV tooled by again.