Interstate/Interstate, US Highway/US Highway, State Highway/State Highway, Interstate/US Highway, Interstate/US Highway/State Highway, etc.
In Texas, it really depends on the region (and how new the interstate is). While San Antonio and Fort Worth typically signs concurrencies, you're hard-pressed to see a US Highway signed on an interstate in Dallas and Houston (with I-69/US 59 being an exception).
Michigan does pretty good at it. There is a 73 mile concurrency with I-75 and US-23 between Flint and Standish that is marked at every interchange for both highways. Even with it having both highways it's only called I-75 and never US-23 in this stretch.
Further up M-55 has a concurrency with I-75 and it is marked as well and likewise only goes by I-75.
I can't think of any that aren't marked. Michigan does pretty well with signage although some of the US-10 signs for the Lodge Freeway didn't get replaced with M-10 signs until into the 2000's.
Nevada only has I/US and US/US concurrencies, and the overlaps are fully signed.
Actually, Nevada does also have I-80 BUS loops that overlap with US routes and/or state highways, with the level of BR signage varying depending on the route.
Tennessee is awful.
Surprisingly California is pretty good at signing multiplexes for the most part. I noticed some sort overlaps on freeways like with CA 99/CA 59/CA 140 aren't signed aside from junctions. Usually those instances are short enough that reassurance shields on the freeway probably don't matter.
Arkansas: Signing congruencies is for losers. Why not have eight sections of one highway instead?
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 17, 2020, 02:44:35 PM
Michigan does pretty good at it.
I agree. The only thing that is sometimes missing is when a state-designated multi-county route joins a State or US route, they may omit the reassurance signs for the county route. The sign for the turn when the county route takes off on its own is there, just not the reassurance while they are concurrent.
Indiana seems pretty consistent. My family lives in and around Delphi, and they were great about signing US 421/SR-18/25/39 and the appropriate breakoffs of each route.
However, their "elimination" of routes at major metropolitan areas, like Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, and Lafayette leaves a lot to be desired. To basically not sign a route or an alternative across a city is irresponsible. Sure navigation systems can solve this, but it won't use the routes that are built to the standards for traffic, whereas signing an alternate or setting up concurrencies, would be better for everyone.
---
Washington seems pretty consistent, except for the SR 509/99 concurrency.
Quote from: GaryV on February 17, 2020, 03:33:33 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 17, 2020, 02:44:35 PM
Michigan does pretty good at it.
I agree. The only thing that is sometimes missing is when a state-designated multi-county route joins a State or US route, they may omit the reassurance signs for the county route. The sign for the turn when the county route takes off on its own is there, just not the reassurance while they are concurrent.
Yeah I've noticed that in the areas that have county highways. There aren't any county highways at all in my area.
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 17, 2020, 05:09:05 PM
Indiana seems pretty consistent. My family lives in and around Delphi, and they were great about signing US 421/SR-18/25/39 and the appropriate breakoffs of each route.
However, their "elimination" of routes at major metropolitan areas, like Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, and Lafayette leaves a lot to be desired. To basically not sign a route or an alternative across a city is irresponsible. Sure navigation systems can solve this, but it won't use the routes that are built to the standards for traffic, whereas signing an alternate or setting up concurrencies, would be better for everyone.
---
Washington seems pretty consistent, except for the SR 509/99 concurrency.
That is one thing I hate about Indy otherwise I have had a lot of fun there. I don't get why every single through route other than 65 and 70 are routed around Indy and not through it.
The worst state that I've experienced is Tennessee.
What about Georgia? It's an unholy mess.
Illinois is very good at cosigning Interstates highways and US highways. See I-39/90/US 51. However, there is one instance I know of where the stat highway is not cosigned with the interstate. IL 56 officially is on I-88 between IL 31 and the IL 56 freeway exit. The only mention of it being on I-88 is at Route 31. At the end of the Route 56 freeway going eastbound, it is not mentioned at all.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2020, 07:26:53 PM
What about Georgia? It's an unholy mess.
Georgia is an overdose of unnecessary US Route and State multiplexes, though at least consistent at signing overlapping state routes. So it's unnecessary for SR 1 or 3, but useful for following SR 26, 77, 92, or 166 (as examples).
Alabama is pretty good at recognizing multiplexes and where they join and/or leave. There's a few places like Montgomery and Dothan which overdo it. The only conspicuously absent multiplex is US 31 and I-65 from Athens to the Tennessee state line, though I think nobody really notices except for us roadgeeks.
Virginia and North Carolina are good about signing multiplexes. Tennessee is not.
I'd say Ohio is pretty good, though the downtowns of the 3-Cs can be sporadic.
Texas and Wyoming: good.
Colorado and New Mexico: bad
Not that the missing routes are ones that impair navigation, though. It keeps the clutter down.
Might as well go through each type for Utah:
-I/I: only two, both signed very well.
-I/US: highly variable. They range from the extremely well-signed I-70/US 89 to the almost completely unsigned I-80/US 189.
-US/US: these are very well signed except for US 40/189, which omits 189 signage from the interchange roads. I'm not complaining about that though, because 189 used to be omitted entirely on that segment.
-I/SR: it's unclear whether SR 30 runs concurrent with I-15 and I-84 or there's a gap in the route, due to how Utah legislative descriptions for state routes work. If the concurrencies do exist, they're completely unsigned.
-US/SR: Like the interstate concurrencies above, it's questionable whether SR 30 has a silent concurrency with US 89 or if there's a gap in the route, although there is some signage in Logan suggesting the concurrency does exist. This category also includes 89/71 and 89/194, both of which are the result of interchange reconstructions and have quite poor signage anyway.
-SR/SR: there are three potential locations for these - 68/85, 68/48, and 118/120. 68/85 has multiple sets of dual reassurance shields, 68/48 is implicit from directional signs, and 118/120 has shitty signage all around.
In addition, almost every business route is concurrent with a state route. BL signage is sporadic, most commonly found near the endpoints of the route.
Minnesota tends to (usually) not sign routes that spend long stretches as concurrencies, but there are some exceptions. A list of signed and unsigned concurrencies I know of in MN:
Signed:
I-94/I-694
I-35E/US-10
I-35W/US-10
US-10/US-61
I-694/US-10
MN-55/MN-62
US-71/MN-23
US-52/MN-55
Unsigned:
I-94/US-52
I-94/US-12
I-94/MN-55
I-394/US-12
US-169/Hennepin CSAH-1
Hennepin CSAH-81/Hennepin CSAH-66
Concur with a comment upthread about Arkansas and their abhorrant lack of concurrency signage. I'd argue they're worse than Tennessee. Tennessee's signage issues are primarily limited to the four largest cities...but even there they'll still post some concurrencies.
As long as the state route is not the underlying hidden route associated with a US highway (i.e. US 98 = AL 42), Alabama is pretty good about signing concurrencies.
DJ mentioned the "long stretches as concurrencies" in Minnesota. That's entirely limited to 94/52, 94/12, and 394/12, though even with these three concurrencies there's a few signs indicating the concurrency. Otherwise, MnDOT signs concurrencies pretty well.
Regarding DJ's last two mentions with county routes, the county routes in question have gaps and are not continuous, so no concurrency officially exists.
NJDOT is so-so. Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency. Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.
This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 . It's 130 South TO 322 West here. There's also 4 lanes here, not 3. Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.
The traffic light street sign blades are also hit and miss (often a miss) in regards to concurrencies, but they do have this triple concurrency signed! https://goo.gl/maps/aMaiPL9rn4dSrBQx5 which may be the only place along the concurrency where all 3 route numbers are signed.
Florida just started signing other roads on interstates with the exception of US 19 on I-275, only because US 19 was there first and it is the only water crossing of the Tampa Bay for the area. However, US 1 and US 17 were both moved onto I-95 in Miami and Jacksonville and both yet have gotten shields for their new alignments.
NJ where I grew up was good about signing I-78 and US 22 from Still Valley to Clinton as US 22 appeared everyplace that I-78 did, but some still need desiring though. The US 9 concurrency in two places on the Parkway used to be good about it but recently the NJTA forgot about them, and across Great Egg Harbor I cannot say as I have not been on it since 2005 and then it was not official even though Beeslys Point Bridge had been shut down at the time. The George Washington Bridge does not sign US 1 nor US 9 in many places and back in the 1970's it was worse than it is today. US 1, 9, and 46 had no direction banners on US 9W so it was implied that all three US routes began from the ramp onto that concurrency, but now I see on GSV that was fixed.
Texas is good and bad at the same time. San Antonio does a great job signing both US 87 and 281 on interstate freeways, but Dallas and Houston both do not sign US routes on the freeways signed as interstates. Fort Worth does sign US 287 (or at least from IH 30) and from Alex's Amarillo photos I see that part of the state does sign concurrencies. US 190 is signed along newly designated IH 14 and Texarkana does sign US 59 well on IH 369 (in fact ramps ignore IH 369, but sign US 59 well) but some ramp signs still omit US 59 on IH 30 (probably cause that move was done since 2000 as it used to go through the city originally).
Delaware was good with US 40 up until they redid the US 13 and I-295 exchange and now US 40 signs for NJ have not been copied to the new signs there. I do not know how well US 202 is signed on I-95, but DE 1 and US 13 are signed well. In fact DelDOT during route changes would imply concurrencies until the drivers got used to the new alignment. For example DE 896 before being moved to end at US 13 in Boyd's Corner was given a concurrency to Blackbird along US 13 as that was the original end of that highway before it was taken out of Middletown.
Also when I-95 was going to moved to I-495, the route was signed for both 95 and 495 as to get drivers used to that change that never happened as I-95 was moved back after they changed their minds.
Pennsylvania is real good about concurrencies, but in Pittsburgh US 22 and 30 have vanished at the I-376 and 279 exchange though. I-376 is signed solo and no mention of those two even though the Penn Lincoln Parkway was both US 22 & 30 before I-376 was commissioned.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2020, 12:29:57 PM
Pennsylvania is real good about concurrencies, but in Pittsburgh US 22 and 30 have vanished at the I-376 and 279 exchange though. I-376 is signed solo and no mention of those two even though the Penn Lincoln Parkway was both US 22 & 30 before I-376 was commissioned.
It's not signed on overhead guides through the concurrency, but US 22-30 motorists are given notice (https://goo.gl/maps/7tCLdLx6kMHRTBWw7) as they approach I-376. Given the already intense (but basically unavoidable) overloading of sign messages at The Point (https://goo.gl/maps/7LCdHxFXWJpuxCSU7), I think not including US 22-30 on guide signage is appropriate in this case. For what it's worth, US 22-30 shields are included fairly consistently on reassurance signage (https://goo.gl/maps/FjcDAVKAUpHf5C2F9) through the concurrency.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2020, 12:19:59 PM
NJDOT is so-so. Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency. Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.
This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 . It's 130 South TO 322 West here. There's also 4 lanes here, not 3. Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.
The traffic light street sign blades are also hit and miss (often a miss) in regards to concurrencies, but they do have this triple concurrency signed! https://goo.gl/maps/aMaiPL9rn4dSrBQx5 which may be the only place along the concurrency where all 3 route numbers are signed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2020, 12:19:59 PM
NJDOT is so-so. Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency. Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.
This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 . It's 130 South TO 322 West here. There's also 4 lanes here, not 3. Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2020, 12:19:59 PM
NJDOT is so-so. Good in some areas, although they continually mess this up: https://goo.gl/maps/edkihjDEwZpTHZDZ9 should be US 130 South TO I-295 South, and once on 295, https://goo.gl/maps/NX1oaenQcect4s1u7 should eliminate the "TO", as at this point it's a concurrency. Yet, other than this interchange, it's signed perfect (295/130) or reasonably well (just showing 295, which it's known as) in both directions.
This one is never signed right in both directions: https://goo.gl/maps/8nzGX7eCqctHnL1V9 . It's 130 South TO 322 West here. There's also 4 lanes here, not 3. Staying in the center lane will cause you to stay on 295 South, unless you take an evasive move across the option lane to the right, which has ended badly for some.
The traffic light street sign blades are also hit and miss (often a miss) in regards to concurrencies, but they do have this triple concurrency signed! https://goo.gl/maps/aMaiPL9rn4dSrBQx5 which may be the only place along the concurrency where all 3 route numbers are signed.
Yes that one is funny you should mention being that 130 was there first and for many decades even after 295 was granted to be there, NJDOT still used exit guides remaining from the solo 130 days with no advance other than NEXT RIGHT and the at exit arrow signs. The signs were like on the non freeway with street names and destinations and not given larger ones until the 1980's when the current freeway set up was constructed.
I do love how NJDOT signed 1&9 with a combined ampersand shield (or with a dash), but it seems they are mostly transitioning to separate shields :(
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 17, 2020, 03:19:31 PM
Surprisingly California is pretty good at signing multiplexes for the most part. I noticed some sort overlaps on freeways like with CA 99/CA 59/CA 140 aren't signed aside from junctions. Usually those instances are short enough that reassurance shields on the freeway probably don't matter.
They're good except when they don't sign the highway whatsoever because maintenance has switched from the state to some local authority.
Idaho is far from perfect, especially at interchanges (usually only showing the main route unless the interchange involves the multiplex entering/exiting), but they're pretty good. These are all around the Boise area because that's mostly what I'm familiar with, but it's also where most of the multiplexes are, especially the ones involving >2 highways.
(https://i.imgur.com/qLLSB3o.png)
GSV Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5677128,-116.1959585,3a,90y,208.28h,85.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqDrqVnb5brrgaBn2pf6R4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://i.imgur.com/7EC6RyZ.png)
GSV Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5936578,-116.3697748,3a,63.3y,272.41h,85.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC7UNKy8DmwSmK5a1GPWXpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://i.imgur.com/6fv7ldz.png)
GSV Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6625462,-116.6614268,3a,26.8y,94.48h,88.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5bvGpGH5bcC9aiaJW5cBpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://i.imgur.com/K8ADkEH.png)
GSV Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6655699,-116.6662328,3a,75y,299.1h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUvCgRXEW9QPOeBHUor_DaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This one the multiplexed routes are still represented, but on a sign off to the side that most people wouldn't notice.
(https://i.imgur.com/z65Tjbp.png)
GSV Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5904666,-116.3936381,3a,46.2y,0.72h,91.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scDosRFlbNhi_n7WiKZmq-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: skluth on February 18, 2020, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 17, 2020, 03:19:31 PM
Surprisingly California is pretty good at signing multiplexes for the most part. I noticed some sort overlaps on freeways like with CA 99/CA 59/CA 140 aren't signed aside from junctions. Usually those instances are short enough that reassurance shields on the freeway probably don't matter.
They're good except when they don't sign the highway whatsoever because maintenance has switched from the state to some local authority.
Trying to think of examples in NorCal:
Route 84/US 101 in Redwood City is decently signed
Route 92/Route 35 west of San Mateo is signed okay
US 101/Route 1 north of the Golden Gate Bridge is well signed
Route 1/I-280 in Daly City is very well signed
I-80/I-580 along the Eastshore Freeway in Emeryville is very well signed
Not sure how well I-880/Route 84 is signed
Route 84/Route 238 in Union City is I think signed somewhat.
Route 152 and US 101 near Gilroy, not sure how well this is signed via trailblazers. Though the concurrency is pretty well established and not a route gap along the 1980s new build 101 freeway alignment
in the Sacramento area:
When it existed from 1982-2016, Business 80 and US 50 were generally well signed in the eastbound direction from I-80 to Route 99, but mostly signed just as Business 80 westbound. Northbound Route 99 had been signed decently between the Oak Park Interchange and I-5.
I-5/Route 99 was signed well in the 90s through the downtown section and into Natomas, though 99 has been deemphasized on that stretch of road since.
Route 193 along I-80 is not considered a signed concurrency
Route 16 prior to being curtailed from the West Sacramento alignment in 1984, I don't think was signed at all between downtown Sacramento and the College Greens neighborhood.
Route 113 and I-80 between Dixon and Davis has been well signed since the early 2000s
Other areas:
US 101/Route 156 in Prunedale is very well signed
Route 152/Route 33 in Santa Nella is well signed
Route 1/Route 68 in Monterey is decently signed
This is one thing Louisiana does well. Although I wish they would place the two highway shields next to one another. There are many places, near Baton Rouge for example, where there may be a US 190 shield and then further back a lone LA 1 shield. But it may be like that every other set of shields. Together then not together.
iPhone
Has Michigan signed M-43 along the new concurrency with US-131 between Plainwell and Kalamazoo?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/15305077686/in/album-72157646995008167/
This is the way Florida signs the US 19 & 98 and ALT US 27 concurrency from Chiefland to Perry. Only ALT applies to US 27 while the other two are mainlines. ALT US 27 should be on the bottom or another set of directions between the US 27 and US 19 shields.
Kanas is no better than Florida either. US 400 is not an ALT route here at all! US 69 is at this point, but not the out of place number route.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/47220706711/in/album-72157646995008167/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/30516157503/in/album-72157646995008167/
Then Michigan here in Claire with one large shield and one small shield where both US 127 and US 10 concur.
NJ is good, I guess.
Oregon isn't very good.
The best they seem to do is the I-5/OR 99E multiplex between Salem and Albany. I-84/US 30?? Meh.
You almost NEVER see the duplexed route on sign assemblies approaching the highways. For example, approaching I-5 via OR 22 in Salem?? You'd never know 99E is duplexed
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2020, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2020, 12:19:59 PM
...295/130 Concurrency...
Yes that one is funny you should mention being that 130 was there first and for many decades even after 295 was granted to be there, NJDOT still used exit guides remaining from the solo 130 days with no advance other than NEXT RIGHT and the at exit arrow signs. The signs were like on the non freeway with street names and destinations and not given larger ones until the 1980's when the current freeway set up was constructed.
Hell, they even maintained driveway access from 295 to the existing businesses along that route! They were pissed when NJDOT said, look, we can't have driveways on an interstate highway!
I still debate that the frontage roads that were built along Exits 21/22 weren't the best of designs. Probably should've made them one-way, rather than 2 way. It's fairly common to watch a vehicle going the direction which will eventually dead-end. Doesn't help that they gave the same road name (Crown Point Road) to both frontage roads!
Quote from: interstate73 on February 18, 2020, 01:50:16 PM
I do love how NJDOT signed 1&9 with a combined ampersand shield (or with a dash), but it seems they are mostly transitioning to separate shields :(
I personally liked "1&9" the best. I thought they were mostly using "1-9", with the NJ Turnpike generally being the only agency going with separate shields.
Massachusetts is really good.
Illinois even signs county road concurrency. At least one on Illinois 336 110 which is now
a useless one. 336 is anachronistic. I wonder if that is why the tollway downplays 56 because it's really more a spur to get to 47 34 and 30 and really not related to the road through Dupage.
In New Mexico, on I-10 west of Las Cruces, you would never know that you are also on US Routes 70 and 180.
Ditto for US 54 where it is concurrent with I-40 from Tucumcari to Santa Rosa.
Quote from: Konza on February 19, 2020, 05:21:22 PM
In New Mexico, on I-10 west of Las Cruces, you would never know that you are also on US Routes 70 and 180.
Ditto for US 54 where it is concurrent with I-40 fro Tucumcari to Santa Rosa.
Hell, you wouldn't know that you were on US 85 since it isn't signed on I-25.
Michigan even signs the business routes on routes that it follows a concurrency. An example is Business US-127 and M-46 in St. Louis.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2020, 12:32:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2020, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2020, 12:19:59 PM
...295/130 Concurrency...
Yes that one is funny you should mention being that 130 was there first and for many decades even after 295 was granted to be there, NJDOT still used exit guides remaining from the solo 130 days with no advance other than NEXT RIGHT and the at exit arrow signs. The signs were like on the non freeway with street names and destinations and not given larger ones until the 1980's when the current freeway set up was constructed.
Hell, they even maintained driveway access from 295 to the existing businesses along that route! They were pissed when NJDOT said, look, we can't have driveways on an interstate highway!
I still debate that the frontage roads that were built along Exits 21/22 weren't the best of designs. Probably should've made them one-way, rather than 2 way. It's fairly common to watch a vehicle going the direction which will eventually dead-end. Doesn't help that they gave the same road name (Crown Point Road) to both frontage roads!
Quote from: interstate73 on February 18, 2020, 01:50:16 PM
I do love how NJDOT signed 1&9 with a combined ampersand shield (or with a dash), but it seems they are mostly transitioning to separate shields :(
I personally liked "1&9" the best. I thought they were mostly using "1-9", with the NJ Turnpike generally being the only agency going with separate shields.
I remember the motel that was near Mount Royal that was a RIRO and then the jersey freeway part around Red Bank. If I remember correctly NJ did sign I-295 separate from US 130 on reassurance shields post interchanges at the time. Of course, not many Interstate and other highways concurring other than I-78 and US 22 (signed pretty well) and I-80 & US 206 (though too short to be measured, though the EB US 46 ramp omits US 206 S Bound).
There though is in NJ consistency on signing as all concurrencies are stacked on shield assemblies, however the US 130 and NJ 33 overlap does something that NY usually does and omits directional banners and features the reassurance markers direction-less. Also at one time ( I do not know if NJDOT changed this) in Wayne, the US 202 and NJ 23 overlap had US 202 on the bottom and not on top as the MUTCD states which all the other US and state concurrencies with the US routes first including US 202 with NJ 31 in Hunterdon County.
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
Quote from: 3467 on February 19, 2020, 05:02:54 PM
I wonder if that is why the tollway downplays 56 because it's really more a spur to get to 47 34 and 30 and really not related to the road through Dupage.
ISTHA might downplay the IL 56 overlap with I-88 and the the IL 56 Spur Freeway to Sugar Grove, perhaps because that section is the old Tollway Mainline? The west end of Toll US 30, reconnecting to Free US 30
And not related? One could quite easily argue that I-88, between Aurora and Oak Brook, makes a very nice Toll Bypass of the same corridor that surface highway IL 56/Butterfield Rd makes between those points
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 19, 2020, 12:06:17 PM
Oregon isn't very good.
The best they seem to do is the I-5/OR 99E multiplex between Salem and Albany. I-84/US 30?? Meh.
You almost NEVER see the duplexed route on sign assemblies approaching the highways. For example, approaching I-5 via OR 22 in Salem?? You'd never know 99E is duplexed
I believe the reason 30 doesn't get cosigned with 84 is because of 30H running nearby.
Montana seems to do a good job of posting concurrencies, to the point where you can get such wonderful sign salad as this (https://goo.gl/maps/mj12BDoQBB74RRv98) outside of Great Falls. MT 3 is the direct route between Great Falls and Billings, but is mostly concurrent on US 12, US 191 and US 87. Yet, Montana is good about signing it the entire way.
The only miss that I know of is the short concurrency between US 2 and US 191 in Malta. The two run together to cross the Milk River (only a distance of about 1000 feet), but is signed as "TO US 191". I'm sure there are more, but my impression is that there are very few "forgotten" concurrencies.
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route. Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.
Quote from: roadman on February 20, 2020, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route. Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.
1A and 3A are pretty long.
Quote from: 1 on February 20, 2020, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: roadman on February 20, 2020, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route. Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.
1A and 3A are pretty long.
True. However, my point still stands.
Quote from: roadman on February 20, 2020, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 20, 2020, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: roadman on February 20, 2020, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
State XA routes are individual short branches off the US-X route, even if the route log considers the MA-XA route to be continuous from end to end on the US-X route. Signing the concurrency of the US-X and MA-XA routes between these short branches IMO would serve little, if any, useful benefit to drivers, and would require far more signing.
1A and 3A are pretty long.
True. However, my point still stands.
Oh, I get your point...just saying they don't sign it *heh*
Quote from: GaryV on February 19, 2020, 08:43:45 AM
Has Michigan signed M-43 along the new concurrency with US-131 between Plainwell and Kalamazoo?
I haven't checked along US-131, but M-43 is signed along M-89 between Plainwell and Richland
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
Heh. And then there's when they post them with one route shield behind the other (e.g., MA 9 and MA 116 WB in Hadley). At least they posted it.
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
US 1/MA 1A says hi: https://goo.gl/maps/9KCYy8pcSdPKubzm9
Corrections shown below in blue based on later post from Bob7374
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 21, 2020, 10:44:54 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
US 1/MA 1A says hi: https://goo.gl/maps/9KCYy8pcSdPKubzm9
I was about to state similar. For some reason, this US 1/MA 1A concurrency between Newburyport & Salisbury has been inconsistently signed for decades (signed at the Salisbury end but not the Newburyport end). I'm not 100% sure if this
signed concurrency has always existed. Part of me wants to say
no from the 70s and back.
Another signed MA X/XA concurrency is MA 2/2A between Concord and West Concord. Such has existed ever since MA 2A was rerouted away from Downtown Concord circa the early 80s. Prior to the mid-90s/early 2000s(?), there was an old LGS that had the
2A listing (above the
CONCORD CENTER legend) greened out at the Elm St. intersection.
Connecticut is pretty good; I can't think of an overlap signing gap on surface routes, though there may be a few, especially if short.
There are a few gaps on the interstates (which have surprisingly few concurrencies overall... for example, I-91 has about 9 exits involving US 5, but US 5 never hops on board).
* US 6 is mostly ignored when overlapping I-84
* CT 2A is partially signed along the I-395 overlap
* I-95 and US 1 overlap twice, at the Connecticut and Thames rivers, and those are signed pretty well (e.g. on CT 9, 12, 32, 184)
CT used to infrequently include a small US 6 shield under I-84 trailblazers (some were small and what I'd call "nonstandard"). I remember as a kid wondering how anyone following US 6 would be able to do so.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2020, 11:30:00 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on February 21, 2020, 10:44:54 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 20, 2020, 01:13:09 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on February 19, 2020, 04:48:47 PM
Massachusetts is really good.
Almost perfect...they don't sign it when the concurrency is US/MA-x and MA-xA, but the route logs log them as concurrencies.
US 1/MA 1A says hi: https://goo.gl/maps/9KCYy8pcSdPKubzm9
I was about to state similar. For some reason, this US 1/MA 1A concurrency between Newburyport & Salisbury has been signed for decades. I'm not 100% sure if this signed concurrency has always existed. Part of me wants to say no from the 70s and back.
Another signed MA X/XA concurrency is MA 2/2A between Concord and West Concord. Such has existed ever since MA 2A was rerouted away from Downtown Concord circa the early 80s. Prior to the mid-90s/early 2000s(?), there was an old LGS that had the 2A listing (above the CONCORD CENTER legend) greened out at the Elm St. intersection.
IIRC from the Newburyport Road meet, the sign in the link above was the last including both US 1 and 1A heading south, there were no signs of the concurrency once crossing into Newburyport. Before that, you have this sign at the start of the bridge over the Merrimack River: https://goo.gl/maps/qZiDtVDFhjpnCJjG7 (https://goo.gl/maps/qZiDtVDFhjpnCJjG7)