Adjacent State Highway Signing

[corco]

On certain occasions, states sign routes in neighboring states. This always intrigues me. Washington State does it on several occasions, for instance:


US-12 EB at Washington SR 125

Washington SR 290 EB near the Idaho State Line (sort of unclear WHY WSDOT decided to replicate the Idaho shield here since SH-53 isn't that important of a highway, it's almost like they did it just so they could make an Idaho shield)

I-5 NB near the Canadian Border

as well as signing Idaho's US 95 fairly well in various places from the SR 27 corridor and I-84 fairly well from the SR 14/I-205 corridor.

I have yet to run into an instance in Wyoming, Colorado (with the exception of a lone TO I-80 trailblazer on US 138 right by the Nebraska line), Oregon, or Idaho where this happens, but I'm curious as to where it happens in other states.

I'm particularly interested in state and US highways, since interstates are fairly commonly signed across state lines. Show me photos if you have them.

On a related note, I'm interested in state highway shields that appear in the wrong places, such as the Ohio SR 400 shields that showed up along US 400 in KANSAS, and the Alabama 10/141 shields that showed up on Massachusetts 10/141 in Massachusetts.

[yanksfan6129]

Yes, I've seen it. I love when NY and PA sign NJ State highway shields the way they should be . . .without the black square around the white circle.

[rmsandw]

In Iowa on U.S. 61 you will find some IL 9/96.  In Missouri there have been some signs of IL 3 in Downtown St. Louis.  Plus, on I-55 at MO 74 in Cape you will see one BGS going SB with the shield for IL 146 and one with IL 146 as the control city.
http://www.geocities.com/moroads0/momistake.html
With
http://www.geocities.com/moroads0/mo74.html
Without

[Alps]

PA in NJ (incorrectly, NJ 183)
PA in NY (correctly)
Various forms of NH in VT (correctly, but mostly done wrong)

[vdeane]

I-81 has a sign in Ontario: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/w7kfOIdtcYfTi0dBfoJn1Q?feat=directlink

[corco]

One of my favorite "adjacent state" goofs is here (last photo on the page).

That is pretty funny. My question is why did WisDOT erect that sign? It seems like normally those first exit for the next state signs, even when placed in the first state, are erected by the state who has the exit's DOT (at least in rural areas). That's just an all around weird situation

[akotchi]

Signs on I-78 WB at Exit 3 in New Jersey used to have "to PA 33," done correctly.

Signing on the PA side of the Delaware provide NJ 29 and NJ 90 shields as standalones, which is the New Jersey standard.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Maryland has signage for VA 241 on the Beltway just before the Wilson Bridge.

[corco]

My understanding is that signage in State "A", for an exit that is in State "B", is still the responsibility of State "A", since they have jurisdiction over that segment of highway.

Multi-state toll authorities (i.e. PANYNJ, DRJTBC, etc) obviously would be an exception to this.  But when we're talking about roads maintained by the state DOTs, it's still the responsibility of that state DOT, even if the exit is physically located in a different state.

Interesting- I know for sure the signs for Wash SR 14 in Oregon (from I-5 and I-82) are WSDOT signs, and the Nebraska Link 53B sign on I-80 in Wyoming is pretty clearly an NDOR manufacture. On the other hand, the US-395/730 signs on I-82 for the Oregon exit located in Washington are pretty clearly WSDOT signs, so maybe it goes both ways

[Michael]

As far as I know, the following sign is maintained by NY:

Credit: Gribblenation

There are some others around that area, but I don't have pictures of them.

[Alps]

Signing on the PA side of the Delaware provide NJ 29 and NJ 90 shields as standalones, which is the New Jersey standard.

You reminded me - I-84 in PA and NY has a bunch of takes on NJ 23.  Also see US 6 in NY and the Orange CR (17 I believe) connecting to 23.  Just navigate from alpsroads.net/roads, I'm tired and lazy.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Froggie: Do you have a photo of the WI 95 "MINN" shield on US 8 at the St. Croix River across from Taylors Falls?

[Duke87]

There is only one instance I know of where Connecticut properly signs an adjacent state route: Signs for NY 120A on the Merritt Parkway.
...actually, NY 120A in and of itself is a weird one. Despite being a New York route, it spends some time physically over the line in Connecticut.

As far as I remember, signs for RI 78 just use Connecticut shields. Then again, the two states' shields are near identical, so it's not glaring. And, technically, the first fraction of mile of the route is in Connecticut and is actually officially CT 78.

[J N Winkler]

My understanding is that signage in State "A", for an exit that is in State "B", is still the responsibility of State "A", since they have jurisdiction over that segment of highway.

This is true, but I would argue that it is common for projects to be kept together and administered by a single state DOT even if the work occurs on both sides of the state line.  Some examples which come to mind:

*  Arizona DOT sign rehabilitations on I-8 and I-40 near the Colorado River:  signs placed by Arizona DOT in California, typically done to California sign design standards (except when referring specifically to exits in Arizona) but with Arizona DOT standards for sign hardware, sheeting, and demountable legend (if used)

*  Borman Expressway reconstruction Illinois-Indiana--administered by Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT standard plan sheets in the Illinois DOT plans set, seals by PEs registered in Indiana on the sheets referring to work in Indiana

*  US 54 rehabilitation New Mexico/Texas--administered by TxDOT, NMDOT standard plan sheets in the TxDOT plans set, sheets referring to NM sealed by PEs registered in NM

*  I-40 sign rehabilitation Arizona (Sun Valley-Lupton) with some signs placed in New Mexico--administered by Arizona DOT, ADOT plans set, some signs (including the NM welcome sign) furnished by NMDOT for erection by the ADOT contractor

I think the US 24 Fort-to-Port corridor has one project which crosses the state line, but I forget which DOT administered it and how work in the other state was handled.

In general, the procedure for administering the out-of-state work depends on the extent to which the foreign state DOT can waive provisions of its engineering practice law.  Many states have laws requiring that plans for construction work performed on the state highway system in a given state must be approved and supervised by a (civil) PE registered in that state.  I am not sure how Arizona DOT gets around this for signing work in the neighboring states; I suspect Caltrans and NMDOT may have the flexibility to allow administrative approvals of work administered by a foreign state DOT as long as it is the kind that could normally be handled by state forces.

[Revive 755]

About last August an NE 92 detour was signed in Iowa since the South Omaha Bridge across the Missouri was closed.  Funny part was the use of Nebraska shields for the EB detour for IA 92 - but that was probably due to the bridge replacement being an NDOR project, including some of the approach grading.

This is true, but I would argue that it is common for projects to be kept together and administered by a single state DOT even if the work occurs on both sides of the state line.

River bridges are probably the most common occurrence of this.  At least for the Missouri River, the states seem to alternate by project which state does which bridge:

* Nebraska get the US 159 bridge replacement
* MoDOT gets the US 136 bridge rehabilitation
* I think Nebraska gets the Highway 2 bridge rehabilitation
* Iowa gets the future US 34 bridge near Plattsmouth
* Nebraska gets the US 275 bridge
* Iowa gets the new bridge for WB I-80

[florida]

US 90 heading west between Quincy and Chattahoochee.....


....then, when you turn right, you're greeted with this



In Alabama..

[Alps]

About last August an NE 92 detour was signed in Iowa since the South Omaha Bridge across the Missouri was closed.  Funny part was the use of Nebraska shields for the EB detour for IA 92 - but that was probably due to the bridge replacement being an NDOR project, including some of the approach grading.

You reminded me of ANOTHER one.  When DE-MD 286 was detoured (in MD), DE did use a MD 286 shield.  Then there's DE-MD 54 but that's a different matter altogether as it's a border route.  So you'll see the shield of either state on either side of the border depending on whichever state installed it.

[Alps]

There is only one instance I know of where Connecticut properly signs an adjacent state route: Signs for NY 120A on the Merritt Parkway.

Not quite correct, as the "120A" is actually in the Merritt font.

[Duke87]

Not quite correct, as the "120A" is actually in the Merritt font.

Yeah, but it'd look weird if it wasn't. Better that the fonts on the sign match.

Now if only they could replace that temporary-looking wood(?) sign that's been sitting right before the service station for the past few years with an actual one.

[Revive 755]

Last December there was a truck detour (I think, maybe just a plain detour) for MD 140 on NB US 15 near Gettysburg, PA.

[ComputerGuy]

I have a pic of a sign (c. 1970, by my dad) on a road that is along WA-251 (former) simply showing an arrow pointing north to Canada and a Hwy. 22-A shield. No mention of SR 251. Nada. Zip.

[bugo]

The infamous AR 43/OK 20 duplex contains many signs that would fit this category.  It even has some MO 43 signs several miles away from the Missouri line.

[corco]

I have a pic of a sign (c. 1970, by my dad) on a road that is along WA-251 (former) simply showing an arrow pointing north to Canada and a Hwy. 22-A shield. No mention of SR 251. Nada. Zip.

You should scan that in or take a picture of the picture- I'd love to see that

[ComputerGuy]

Unfortunately, my cat got into some files that included the picture and now the picture is un-noticeable.

[Alex]

Maryland 279 referenced on a Delaware sign along Interstate 95 south



Pennsylvania 452 referenced on a Delaware sign along Interstate 95 north