National Boards > General Highway Talk
Concurrency Routes
vdeane:
--- Quote from: andrepoiy on October 05, 2022, 10:08:22 PM ---I believe there is only one freeway-freeway concurrency (Highway 403 and the QEW) in Ontario.
In this case it follow's the QEW's mileage, presumably because that was the original QEW right-of-way.
--- End quote ---
Plus the intended alignment of 403 was actually built as part of 407.
Avalanchez71:
--- Quote from: US 89 on October 06, 2022, 08:37:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: Rothman on October 06, 2022, 07:00:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 05, 2022, 11:40:27 PM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on October 05, 2022, 07:47:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Rothman on October 05, 2022, 06:57:20 AM ---So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway? KY has a whole lot of discontinuous routes? I'm not so sure.
--- End quote ---
Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).
--- End quote ---
Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects. They just are terrible with signing the few Business Interstate routes that they have.
--- End quote ---
I've found GA's signage to be lacking, actually, with those overhead span wire signs missing routes and the like.
They do sign their state routes which duplicate U.S. routes and the like, but trying to follow a certain route from start to finish can be a fun challenge.
See also MA and the limitations of their SGSes.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the GA overhead spanwires, especially because the signs will slide around on them in the wind (or fall off) over the years. It can be quite difficult to figure out if what you're seeing is telling you to stay straight for whatever route or if there's a turn it's telling you to take.
In my experience around GA and north FL though, I do think Georgia has better signage. Florida tends to omit a lot of reassurance shields from places where they would be helpful and would exist in GA.
--- End quote ---
There are no signs at in Steinhatchee, FL.
Quillz:
--- Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 05, 2022, 11:40:27 PM ---Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.
--- End quote ---
I used to think that signing all concurrencies was a good idea. But now I kind of prefer the less-is-more approach, especially when there's a clear instance of one route/number being far more traveled than the others. Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point. I think Oregon has the right approach of not signing concurrencies for redundant routes, instead using them as business loops where they'll have unique mileage.
US 89:
--- Quote from: Quillz on October 07, 2022, 07:41:12 AM ---Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point.
--- End quote ---
Huh? Colorado is at or near the top of the list for worst concurrency signage in the US. There are no standing US 87 shields in the state. Good luck following US 6 or US 85 through Denver without signs…
JoePCool14:
--- Quote from: Quillz on October 07, 2022, 07:41:12 AM ---
--- Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 05, 2022, 11:40:27 PM ---Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.
--- End quote ---
I used to think that signing all concurrencies was a good idea. But now I kind of prefer the less-is-more approach, especially when there's a clear instance of one route/number being far more traveled than the others. Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point. I think Oregon has the right approach of not signing concurrencies for redundant routes, instead using them as business loops where they'll have unique mileage.
--- End quote ---
The problem with Georgia is how so many of their routes are concurrent in the first place. You shouldn't have all these instances where 4 routes share the same stretch of road. Split some of them up and give each segment new numbers.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version