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

[Finrod]

Georgia is wildly inconsistent about these kinds of things.

Here's a Google Maps streetview shot of the reassurance sign for US 23 North, US 29 North, US 78 East, US 278 East, SR 8 East, and SR 10 East in Atlanta.  Before you bring up the link, try to guess how Georgia posted it.  You'll probably be wrong.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7738623,-84.3485943,3a,75y,90h,93.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB9mkqg_bu4obRq2f-SYWng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[roadman65]

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.

PennDOT used to use US 22 to the left of I-78 between Hamburg and Fogelsville for many years.  Even ramp signs omitted I-78 at Krumsville and Lehartsville and in Hamburg itself.  Only from PA 61 westward did I-78 get the upper hand.

I believe that had to do with the I-78 freeway being incomplete before 1990, so many (including PennDOT) would consider the Schuykill River the ending of I-78 even though it officially ended for years at Fogelsville with a sign marking the point of end as originally I-78 was not to use PA 309 but have its own freeway further south of its current alignment through the Lehigh Valley.

Anyway, US 130 was signed differently on I-295 as both would have shields place at different spots instead of together until the road was upgraded as before 1985 that was not up to standards then.

[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.

If we're going to talk preferences, then ...

Well, the OP asked what our preference is, so I just figured that's what I should answer.   

[roadman65]

Yes, you caught me derailing my own thread lol!

[wanderer2575]

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.

That's the norm for Michigan, but the I-96/I-275 concurrency has always been an exception -- large shields for both routes have always been posted.  Perhaps because, while I-96 technically is the primary route, everybody knows it as I-275.



My own preference for photos is side-by-side. 

Also, if there's an auxiliary component such as END, JCT, or a turn for one of the routes, I think the assemblies should be side-by-side.  Something like this can be confusing (I know this isn't a concurrency, but it illustrates the point and should be posted side-by-side):

[roadman65]

Speaking of Indiana, how about this one with three different shields side by side.

[myosh_tino]

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

I tend to see reassurance shields stacked like this...


...but for Freeway Entrance assemblies, the shields are side-by-side.

Note: I know this section of I-980 is not multiplexed with CA-24 but I think you all get the point.

[ftballfan]

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.

That's the norm for Michigan, but the I-96/I-275 concurrency has always been an exception -- large shields for both routes have always been posted.  Perhaps because, while I-96 technically is the primary route, everybody knows it as I-275.

US-23/M-14 has both roads with the same size shield