Side by side or over each other: Route shield concurrency signing?

[roadman65]

Growing up in NJ we always had the US 1 over US 9 on the one and nine concurrency.  We also had US 201 over US 206 where those two are together.  I-78 over US 22 on their shield signing.  US 130 over NJ 33, and US 40 over US 322.

Yet many states like FL sign them side by side as well as even many parts of PA.

To me I like them both, and even so some have their reasons for being over each other verses side by side, as side clearance as some spots along US 17 & 92 in the Orlando area do have the 17 atop the 92.  In fact if someone where to change all side by sides in FL to like NJ does, it would seem weird and not look right.  Yet if NJDOT decided to place US 1 and US 9 shields side by side it would also seem weird and not be that attractive. 

I guess it is what you are used to seeing.

Wonder which do many of you prefer, the totem pole look or the other way where all are at the same level?

[freebrickproductions]

ALDOT puts the shields side by side for the most part. Larger concurrencies may have some of the shields get stacked.

SM-G900V

[jwolfer]

Growing up in NJ we always had the US 1 over US 9 on the one and nine concurrency.  We also had US 201 over US 206 where those two are together.  I-78 over US 22 on their shield signing.  US 130 over NJ 33, and US 40 over US 322.

Yet many states like FL sign them side by side as well as even many parts of PA.

To me I like them both, and even so some have their reasons for being over each other verses side by side, as side clearance as some spots along US 17 & 92 in the Orlando area do have the 17 atop the 92.  In fact if someone where to change all side by sides in FL to like NJ does, it would seem weird and not look right.  Yet if NJDOT decided to place US 1 and US 9 shields side by side it would also seem weird and not be that attractive. 

I guess it is what you are used to seeing.

Wonder which do many of you prefer, the totem pole look or the other way where all are at the same level?

It doesn't matter to me.  I like some of the triplex signing in Florida like on OBT 17/92/441 or 1/23/301 north of Callahan or 27/301/441 south of Ocala.. 301/441 north of Ocala is almost always stacked I don't recall any side by sides.

Georgia where they sign the state routes as well as the US routes can get out of hand. Folkston has a wall of signs US 1/23/301 SR 4/15/23/121 (yes muliplex of US and SR 23)

Z981

[cwf1701]

In Michigan, the main route would have a larger sign (on freeways). For example, I-96 would have a larger sign than I-275 on the I-96/I-275 multiplex. The only side by side Multiplex in Michigan that i know of was on the I-75/US-10/US-23 multiplex (back when US-10 ended in Detroit) and it was the US routes that was side to side under the I-75 sign.

[Brian556]

I like vertically stacked way better. It also has the advantage of not needing a second directional plaque if both roads are the same direction.

This is the setup that I like the least. Side-by-side on separate poles with no connection:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6902737,-81.2297309,3a,16y,285.3h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4O4yy8kuQEz__AIflzNXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Max Rockatansky]

It seems that Caltrans tends to favor stacked shields on multiplexes but I've seen it the other way as well.

[jwolfer]

I like vertically stacked way better. It also has the advantage of not needing a second directional plaque if both roads are the same direction.

This is the setup that I like the least. Side-by-side on separate poles with no connection:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6902737,-81.2297309,3a,16y,285.3h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4O4yy8kuQEz__AIflzNXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I agree on separate posts... I really hate when one gets messed up.. I really like the "goalpost" type signs they use in Texas and   some other states

Z981

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Minnesota's general practice is stacks when it's a same-direction concurrency and side-by-sides when it's a perpendicular concurrency.

[jp the roadgeek]

I've seen it both ways in CT. 90% of the time it's over each other.  Interstates always get the top spot (I-84/US 6, I-95/US 1), but between US and state, it's usually the lower numbered route getting top spot (US 5 over CT 15, but CT 10 over US 202).  I've seen a couple of side by side route shields on top of LGS mileage signs (CT 159/CT 190 in Suffield, and CT 171/CT 198 in Woodstock).  The quadplex in Danbury is a combination: two side by side over each other signs.  One has I-84/US 7, and the other has US 6/US 202.  All are east-west except US 7.

[Rothman]

Heh.  In MA, they didn't stack sometimes.  Take MA 9 and MA 116 headed WB towards Northampton at the bottom of the hill from Amherst Center:  You have an MA 9 sign and then a MA 116 sign some feet behind it, separately.

[Scott5114]

It depends on the concurrency. If there is one route that is clearly dominant (e.g. a long, regional route over a minor connector, any Interstate over another non-interstate route, etc.), the dominant route should, in my opinion, be stacked over any minor routes. If two routes are of the same importance, they should be placed side by side.

What style of side-by-side posting doesn't really matter to me, though there should be some connection between them to keep them from drifting apart. One good style that hasn't been mentioned yet is the butterfly/tree style MoDOT uses (one shield mounted to z-bar on each side of a single pole).

[Eth]

Both ways are common in Georgia, though I'd say side-by-side probably more so. Usually if there are three routes involved, they'll be displayed as two on the top line and one centered under that, with the same pattern extended for four or more if all the routes are the same cardinal direction. If there are a lot of routes and multiple directions, separate posts may be employed.

[jp the roadgeek]

Heh.  In MA, they didn't stack sometimes.  Take MA 9 and MA 116 headed WB towards Northampton at the bottom of the hill from Amherst Center:  You have an MA 9 sign and then a MA 116 sign some feet behind it, separately.

I've seen that same setup on the MA 57/MA 183 concurrency.

[epzik8]

Over top of each other. Maryland has that on some concurrencies but has a lot side by side, particularly Route 2/4 through Calvert County.

[US 89]

Utah doesn't really know what to do with its concurrencies. The 6/89, I-15/I-80, I-15/I-84, I-15/US 6, and newly signed 40/189 concurrencies are side by side, but the 6/191, 89/91, and 6/50 concurrencies are vertically stacked. Others vary in how they are signed, and some (especially I-70/US 50) are not signed at all.

New Mexico is well known for having crappy signage, but in the case of concurrencies they can get just plain weird. They often put the routes in the same shield, like the 56/412 or 62/180/285 concurrencies.

[sparker]

Prior to the '64 renumbering, CA's default for 2-number routes was vertical stacking; the infamous "sign salads", particularly out in the Inland Empire were a major exception; on Cajon Pass, US 66 and US 91 were signed side-by-side with US 395 centered below them.  However, in L.A. County, the San Bernardino Freeway "triplex" was almost always signed vertically 60/70/99.  In the few years after the Interstate shields started appearing but before the renumbering process, the San Bernardino Freeway had I-10 at the top of a shield "triangle", with US 70 and US 99 below the Interstate shield and side-by-side.  Currently, the few concurrencies are usually displayed vertically; although US 101 and CA 2 NW of downtown L.A. has several side-by-side reassurance shield assemblies.  Personally, if they can be physically accommodated, my personal preference is for side-by-side placement.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I've seen it done both ways in Virginia, though for the most part the routes are signed side-by-side (US 33/250, US 1/301, US 301/VA 2, etc).

[roadman]

Heh.  In MA, they didn't stack sometimes.  Take MA 9 and MA 116 headed WB towards Northampton at the bottom of the hill from Amherst Center:  You have an MA 9 sign and then a MA 116 sign some feet behind it, separately.

On secondary state roads in MA, they normally place signs separate from each other, as opposed to side-by-side, due to right of way constraints.  Stacking route assemblies on a single steel beam posts for concurrencies has only begun to happen on freeways (I-95/128 is the best example), and will eventually be implemented on secondary roads as well.

[PHLBOS]

Heh.  In MA, they didn't stack sometimes.  Take MA 9 and MA 116 headed WB towards Northampton at the bottom of the hill from Amherst Center:  You have an MA 9 sign and then a MA 116 sign some feet behind it, separately.

On secondary state roads in MA, they normally place signs separate from each other, as opposed to side-by-side, due to right of way constraints.  Stacking route assemblies on a single steel beam posts for concurrencies has only begun to happen on freeways (I-95/128 is the best example), and will eventually be implemented on secondary roads as well.

Prior to the 1980s, MassDPW used to erect route shields (for concurrencies) on the same post for secondary state roads/routes.

[roadman]

Heh.  In MA, they didn't stack sometimes.  Take MA 9 and MA 116 headed WB towards Northampton at the bottom of the hill from Amherst Center:  You have an MA 9 sign and then a MA 116 sign some feet behind it, separately.

On secondary state roads in MA, they normally place signs separate from each other, as opposed to side-by-side, due to right of way constraints.  Stacking route assemblies on a single steel beam posts for concurrencies has only begun to happen on freeways (I-95/128 is the best example), and will eventually be implemented on secondary roads as well.

Prior to the 1980s, MassDPW used to erect route shields (for concurrencies) on the same post for secondary state roads/routes.

I recall that well.  It was in the era when cardinal direction plates were considered an "optional extra".  If you omitted those plates, one could easily mount two small shields on a single telescopic or u-channel post.  Much tougher to do that now and provide full assemblies for both routes.

[Bitmapped]

WVDOH almost exclusively does side-by-side for 2-route concurrencies. 3-route concurrencies generally form a triangle shape, and 4-route a 2x2 square. Each route gets its own directional banner. WV's style is clean and consistent.

The one major exception is US 48, which was generally tacked on to existing sign assemblies. It's vertically stacked on a lot of installs and due to space constraints with existing assemblies, tends to not get its own directional banner.

[tribar]

Illinois and Wisconsin are usually but not always horizontal.

[kphoger]

Minnesota's general practice is stacks when it's a same-direction concurrency and side-by-sides when it's a perpendicular concurrency.

This is my strong preference.

Texas seems to do this pretty well (as they do with so much when it comes to signage), such as here in Del Rio.  When there are more than three highways in parallel concurrency, however, they shift one of them over like this near Seymour.

[roadfro]

Nevada doesn't have too many concurrencies...only US/US and I/US overlaps.

Where two routes overlap, the shields tend to be side by side more often than not (there's a few spots on the I-15/US 93 overlap that are on top of each other). For the two triple overlaps involving interstates, the I-shield is typically displayed above the the two side by side US shields.

[MNHighwayMan]

Minnesota's general practice is stacks when it's a same-direction concurrency and side-by-sides when it's a perpendicular concurrency.

This is my strong preference.

If we're going to talk preferences, then my preference is horizontal alignment for two and three routes, a square for four, and a 2/3 split for if, god forbid, you need to have five routes together at once. These are all independent of direction; if you have two routes going the same direction, then the assembly gets two tabs.

Of course, I don't think needing five or more routes together at once should ever occur, (and four is really pushing it, too) but that's a whole different topic.