On concurrencies where normally both/all routes in that concurrency are signed on reassurance shields, post examples of oddball locations where 1 or more of the routes in the currency isn't signed on a reassurance shield.
My examples:
Missing OH 3 North (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.260308,-84.3390749,3a,15y,70.75h,89.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGS5BZtY5D49LKTq6x52GSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Missing US 22 West (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2620408,-84.337388,3a,15y,259.23h,88.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_bfJCtfDCLAe_Jv7yUSKxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Missing US 40 West (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7165133,-90.7124474,3a,19.7y,320.59h,91.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPFJj9XVQ71VD7t0zTC9kBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
This one has since been corrected, but Missing I-44 West (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5381985,-90.5020205,3a,16y,276.72h,89.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smzxRQ0nsu_oHqcn8rtRWTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (how did MoDot mess this one up :confused:)
Missing US 40 West/US 61 North at I-64 West/MO 141 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6403913,-90.5020207,3a,85y,275.29h,99.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIJn83BcAQLFk8rhyW7B-BA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
I recall an 80/94 in Illinois/Indiana that only had the 80, eastbound shortly after the 94/394 interchange. I don't think US 6 was mentioned either.
Not reassurance shields, but MnDOT gets kind of goofy with 94/694 in some spots. The interchange with US 169 omits 694 westbound entirely even though it continues two more miles. The construction at Bottineau Blvd resulted in half the signs mentioning 694 and half only mentioning 94.
None of the US or State routes on I-465 or I-865 around Indianapolis have re-assurance shields. There are BGS when the route enters I-465 stating something like "US 31 Follow I-465 East to Exit 31" but nothing again until it leaves.
I do re-call after one re-signing where a contractor placed one US-40 re-assurance marker on I-465 southbound just after Exit 46, but it was subsequently removed and not replaced.
All US or state highway concurrencies on Interstate Highways in New Mexico.
-I-83/US 322, but not the one you'd expect (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3031847,-76.8297121,3a,75y,165.7h,90.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_SYK7N0s72pUBLH_C2Qxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) (and it probably won't be around much longer with the ongoing reconstruction in that area).
-I-83/I-695 is fully signed here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4147741,-76.6601184,3a,75y,75.28h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAT8nxP98SdLVxNytxcCjNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en), but then a quarter mile later you have this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4179289,-76.6557188,3a,38.8y,79.14h,87.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDAdbAmums7mCZfnx9aZNjA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
-The PA Turnpike used to be missing an I-70 shield just west of Breezewood (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9860823,-78.2642752,3a,75y,272.53h,85.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2GLlKke9uwAm4FqD0WK1Yg!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en), but this one has been fixed.
-I-287 missing from an overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0791765,-73.9215012,3a,75y,353.26h,89.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPHT-1GdzDhRNkIXAGcnPlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) just west of the Tappan Zee.
Quote from: hockeyjohn on January 12, 2021, 11:49:15 AM
None of the US or State routes on I-465 or I-865 around Indianapolis have re-assurance shields. There are BGS when the route enters I-465 stating something like "US 31 Follow I-465 East to Exit 31" but nothing again until it leaves.
I do re-call after one re-signing where a contractor placed one US-40 re-assurance marker on I-465 southbound just after Exit 46, but it was subsequently removed and not replaced.
This has always bothered me. I think I posted about it a long, long time ago. I think Indy is averse to routes through their city limits.
Quote from: CapeCodder on January 12, 2021, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: hockeyjohn on January 12, 2021, 11:49:15 AM
None of the US or State routes on I-465 or I-865 around Indianapolis have re-assurance shields. There are BGS when the route enters I-465 stating something like "US 31 Follow I-465 East to Exit 31" but nothing again until it leaves.
I do re-call after one re-signing where a contractor placed one US-40 re-assurance marker on I-465 southbound just after Exit 46, but it was subsequently removed and not replaced.
This has always bothered me. I think I posted about it a long, long time ago. I think Indy is averse to routes through their city limits.
It's actually the Indiana Dept of Transportation that is behind this. With all the road repairs needed in Indianapolis, I bet that they wish they could go back and let IDOT pay for repairs on the main routes again inside the beltway.
I thought I had read somewhere that Colorado doesn't sign concurrent routes along interstates.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2021, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 12, 2021, 12:37:42 PM
I thought I had read somewhere that Colorado doesn't sign concurrent routes along interstates.
I know I-25 and US-87 are concurrent thought the entire state, and as far as the Colorado/New Mexico state line to Colorado Springs, there is not a single US-87 shield. Short concurrencies, yes. I-25 and US-160 have a short concurrency and it's signed.
US 24 is also signed along its overlap with I-25 in Colorado Springs. I can't think of any others that are signed with any consistency, but I do know US 6/85 are sporadically signed along their I-70 concurrency.
Quote from: CapeCodder on January 12, 2021, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: hockeyjohn on January 12, 2021, 11:49:15 AM
None of the US or State routes on I-465 or I-865 around Indianapolis have re-assurance shields. There are BGS when the route enters I-465 stating something like "US 31 Follow I-465 East to Exit 31" but nothing again until it leaves.
I do re-call after one re-signing where a contractor placed one US-40 re-assurance marker on I-465 southbound just after Exit 46, but it was subsequently removed and not replaced.
This has always bothered me. I think I posted about it a long, long time ago. I think Indy is averse to routes through their city limits.
I think that's an INDOT wide thing. They have taken routes out of cities and given the control of the roads back to the city in several Indiana cities.
After Nevada's Interstate 580 was signed following opening of the several miles of new freeway between south Reno and Washoe Valley in 2012, posting of the shields was a bit inconsistent. For the most part I-580 and US 395 shields were posted side-by-side but I know there were a few I-580 standalones and also some remaining US 395 standalones.
A couple years ago the exits on I-580 from south Carson City to I-80 were renumbered to correspond to Mile 0 of I-580 rather than Mile 0 of US 395 (about 35 miles further south at Topaz Lake at the CA/NV line). At that time some of the other signs were upgraded as well, and following that project I think the I-580/US 395 concurrency is now uniformly signed. I'll check for any strays the next time I drive up to Reno.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 12, 2021, 12:37:42 PM
I thought I had read somewhere that Colorado doesn't sign concurrent routes along interstates.
I know that US-87 runs concurrent with I-25 throughout the whole state, and at least from the New Mexico/Colorado state line to Colorado Springs there is not a single US-87 shield. Short concurrencies are a different story. US-160 is concurrent for a short time on I-25 and it's signed.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2021, 10:33:27 PM
This one has since been corrected, but Missing I-44 West (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5381985,-90.5020205,3a,16y,276.72h,89.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smzxRQ0nsu_oHqcn8rtRWTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (how did MoDot mess this one up :confused:)
For a while MoDOT was taking the position that
only concurrent routes needed reassurance shields, because the enhanced mile markers served as a reassurance shield every 0.2 miles. A bunch of I-35 shields were missing in favor of CKC Route 110 shields as a result of this policy. They backed off of it after pretty much everyone outside of the department told them how stupid an idea that was.
Tennessee is terrible about this. Signage of concurrencies, especially between US and state routes, or state primary and secondary routes, is extremely spotty.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2021, 02:13:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 12, 2021, 12:37:42 PM
I thought I had read somewhere that Colorado doesn't sign concurrent routes along interstates.
I know that US-87 runs concurrent with I-25 throughout the whole state, and at least from the New Mexico/Colorado state line to Colorado Springs there is not a single US-87 shield. Short concurrencies are a different story. US-160 is concurrent for a short time on I-25 and it's signed.
Pretty sure there are none in the entire state. CDOT considers US 87 to not exist in Colorado at all. though AASHTO does.
From my experience, AR rarely signs concurrent routes, but sometimes under a reassurance shield, a control point is "JCT <concurrent route> <route direction>", or TO <concurrent route> is adjacent to the other route's reassurance shield.
-I didn't notice it in enough time to snap a picture of it, but a missing I-24 shield on the I-24/40 concurrency in downtown Nashville created a redundant setup, displaying "WEST I-40 WEST".
Almost everywhere in Oregon neglects the multiplexed highway as you approach the junction.
For example, the I-5/OR 99E multiplex is well signed on the freeway itself. Approaching the freeway?? You'd be hard pressed to know 99E is part of the freeway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 12, 2021, 03:51:44 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2021, 10:33:27 PM
This one has since been corrected, but Missing I-44 West (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5381985,-90.5020205,3a,16y,276.72h,89.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smzxRQ0nsu_oHqcn8rtRWTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (how did MoDot mess this one up :confused:)
For a while MoDOT was taking the position that only concurrent routes needed reassurance shields, because the enhanced mile markers served as a reassurance shield every 0.2 miles. A bunch of I-35 shields were missing in favor of CKC Route 110 shields as a result of this policy. They backed off of it after pretty much everyone outside of the department told them how stupid an idea that was.
Don't think I've seen any I-64 signs removed over the past few years. If MoDOT is going to remove interstate shields in favor of the US route and enhanced mile markers, I thought I-64 would be first, considering I know people that still call it Highway/Route/US 40.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 12, 2021, 04:13:01 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 12, 2021, 02:13:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 12, 2021, 12:37:42 PM
I thought I had read somewhere that Colorado doesn't sign concurrent routes along interstates.
I know that US-87 runs concurrent with I-25 throughout the whole state, and at least from the New Mexico/Colorado state line to Colorado Springs there is not a single US-87 shield. Short concurrencies are a different story. US-160 is concurrent for a short time on I-25 and it's signed.
Pretty sure there are none in the entire state. CDOT considers US 87 to not exist in Colorado at all. though AASHTO does.
Colorado is a case where the state doesn't officially recognize concurrencies, nor do they allow anything to be designated along a road the state doesn't maintain. Which gives us things like the "end" of US 6 in Mack (https://goo.gl/maps/mHMLDj2Wmu5amjMJ7) and an official gap of about half a mile in Rifle, which AASHTO humored them by officially designating. Thus, according to the AASHTO definition, US 6 has a gap, just like US 85 officially has a discontinuity south of Colorado Springs and US 24 has a discontinuity west of Seibert.
Arkansas is another case of the state not recognizing concurrencies unless it is an officially-designated "exception". But unlike Colorado, Arkansas rarely gives the courtesy of signing the implied concurrency. The 40/55 concurrency is one of said "exceptions", but most concurrencies involving US routes are not. In the case of Arkansas, AASHTO has poo-pooed any attempts to officially designate gaps to match the ArrrrrrrrrrDOT definition
Quote from: jmacswimmer on January 12, 2021, 12:14:23 PMI-287 missing from an overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0791765,-73.9215012,3a,75y,353.26h,89.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPHT-1GdzDhRNkIXAGcnPlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) just west of the Tappan Zee.
To be fair, that particular pull-through BGS long predated the completion of I-287 in Suffern, NY circa 1994.
One has to wonder if such was designed under the impression that I-287 in Suffern & northern, NJ would
never be completed.
That said, that BGS should've been modified/replaced to reflect the completion of and the I-287 concurrency 26 years ago.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2021, 05:56:55 PM
That said, that BGS should've been modified/replaced to reflect the completion of and the I-287 concurrency 26 years ago.
*cough* MA 9 at "128"
Quote from: OCGuy81 on January 15, 2021, 12:29:21 PM
Almost everywhere in Oregon neglects the multiplexed highway as you approach the junction.
For example, the I-5/OR 99E multiplex is well signed on the freeway itself. Approaching the freeway?? You'd be hard pressed to know 99E is part of the freeway.
OR 99E might get the short end of the stick, but both US 30 and 395 are well indicated as part of I-84 on approach.
That said...
Between Exits 17 and 37, good luck finding a US 30 reassurance shield on I-84, as ODOT emphasizes 30H on the Historic Highway.
The I-5/I-10 concurrency along the Golden State Freeway between the East Los Angeles Interchange and the San Bernardino Freeway has been pretty inconsistently signed over the years (no doubt fueled by California's policy of not acknowledging concurrencies in route definitions and the state's general tendency to leave concurrency signage up to the local districts).
I-5 NORTH as only route signed at an onramp
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0427948,-118.216498,3a,50.5y,321.21h,90.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOEihieNWHGUyF3rveHMJXA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DOEihieNWHGUyF3rveHMJXA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D78.12993%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
no mention of I-10 east at this spot on the Santa Ana Freeway northbound (where 101 starts and 5 exits to the Golden State route)
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0220625,-118.1977314,3a,75y,319.76h,104.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_JmiJJlfSwIc4aDQz8YtFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0256754,-118.2060141,3a,31.6y,287.12h,97.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRWeWX3Fkxw7r0aO4rxjHSQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRWeWX3Fkxw7r0aO4rxjHSQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D86.98386%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0272807,-118.2096776,3a,75y,287.12h,97.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8JUxjbY8Tuqf0JHzbBFvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There is a mention of the concurrency on I-10 west on the San Bernardino Freeway approaching I-5 (with the San Bernardino Freeway mainline continuing west to the San Bernardino Split at US 101) -
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0553326,-118.1997514,3a,24.8y,255.92h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjEA0ehwMdXWfT-V9XY4ugA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
But no mention of the concurrency at all on I-5 south approaching this interchange:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0669874,-118.2164911,3a,75y,208.73h,86.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0J12cFIy5KcA2xWsN0QJtg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0J12cFIy5KcA2xWsN0QJtg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D273.2867%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
No I-10 shield here in the middle of the concurrency going southbound/westbound:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0469189,-118.2149802,3a,75y,322.57h,101.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQa7qKY35Qnr3UJE3yX2aQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Colorado is not good about signing US highways along Interstates.
The triplex of 39/90/94 is a gold mine for this stuff. If you drive around Madison, you will find any and almost all combinations of those three Interstates on signs. You might see just one Interstate, you might see 39 and 90, you might see 90 and 94, you might see all three.
Quote from: cl94 on January 15, 2021, 02:03:20 PM
Colorado is a case where the state doesn't officially recognize concurrencies, nor do they allow anything to be designated along a road the state doesn't maintain. Which gives us things like the "end" of US 6 in Mack (https://goo.gl/maps/mHMLDj2Wmu5amjMJ7)
Here's the thing about US 6 in Mack, though - according to CDOT's own data (https://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData), that connecting road from Mack to I-70 exit 11 is in fact state maintained, and designated as route 0006A ... the same as US 6 east of Mack.
Illinois only signs IL 110/CKC when/where it wants to
I don't think it is signed on a single BGS in Chicagoland, but does have some reassurance shields
Speaking of CKC, I don't get why specifically Chicago-Kansas City needs a designated corridor, out of the possible city combinations out there. I-35/US 36/I-55 works fine. Why not Chicago-Washington DC, or Chicago-Houston?
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 17, 2021, 12:08:56 AM
Speaking of CKC, I don't get why specifically Chicago-Kansas City needs a designated corridor, out of the possible city combinations out there. I-35/US 36/I-55 works fine. Why not Chicago-Washington DC, or Chicago-Houston?
In Illinois, anyway, the 110/CKC designation is pork for "Forgottonia" /Western IL
Although I wax nostalgic for MA's SGSes, the fact of the matter is concurrencies were missed on them and they are even terrible at just marking all routes at intersections.
One of the more obvious ones in CA is I-10 over I-5 between their two interchanges in central L.A. NB, there was originally a roadside BGS just north of the ELA interchange that featured North I-5 and East I-10, plus one stand-alone dual shield assembly SB right after the WB I-10 merge. Those dated from the mid-'60's; both were gone within 10 years. The only other Interstate multiplex in the state, of course, is I-80/580 near Berkeley; that is remarkably well-signed. On another note, until about 2013, the multiplex of I-80 and CA 113 between Dixon and Davis lacked 113 shields; they were added to the mix then -- probably due to the growth of Dixon as an exurb of greater Sacramento and increased traffic on 113 as a result.
MD 23 is not signed on its concurrency with MD 165 in Jarrettsville, Maryland. At the west end of the East-West Highway at MD 165 there is a "TO MD 23" marker. Internally, MD 23 is continuous rather than two separate routes.
The only Michigan example I can think of is intercounty F-97's concurrence with M-18 in Crawford and Roscommon counties; the state is really good at signing concurrencies. But there are a couple instances of a state route left off a pull-through BGS, which is pretty much the same as what the OP described. For example, M-37 was left off the Exit 31A advance APLs, although it's included on the reassurance assembly.
(https://i.imgur.com/osExtvv.jpg)
Between the south SH-45 intersection and the north SH-45 intersection of SH-130 east of Austin, SH-130 and SH-45 actually cosign. There are major inconstancies in signage in that stretch.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 17, 2021, 05:45:40 PM
The only Michigan example I can think of is intercounty F-97's concurrence with M-18 in Crawford and Roscommon counties; the state is really good at signing concurrencies. ...
Another example is the short concurrency of C-48 on US-131 and M-75 in Boyne Falls. C-48 is on the nb US-131 reassurance sign, but not on the wb M-75 sign. (All the turns are marked.)
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2021, 03:54:44 PM
Tennessee is terrible about this. Signage of concurrencies, especially between US and state routes, or state primary and secondary routes, is extremely spotty.
Tennessee is terrible for sure. Columbia has a concurrency of US 31 and Business US 412. The Business US 412 is like only signed at the junction and beyond it is just US 412. The concurrency has like one US 31/US 412 sign with no Business sign. US 43/US 412 is spotty. Downtown Nashville is a mess.
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 17, 2021, 12:31:54 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 17, 2021, 12:08:56 AM
Speaking of CKC, I don't get why specifically Chicago-Kansas City needs a designated corridor, out of the possible city combinations out there. I-35/US 36/I-55 works fine. Why not Chicago-Washington DC, or Chicago-Houston?
In Illinois, anyway, the 110/CKC designation is pork for "Forgottonia" /Western IL
Why did they not apply for a US Highway designation for this corridor? US 32, US 38, US x12, US x20, US x40?
https://goo.gl/maps/6GCPCcwRwX7izgt97 (https://goo.gl/maps/6GCPCcwRwX7izgt97)
This is actually an entrance ramp to enter the Eastbound US-290 and SH-71 concurrency.
Quote from: gonealookin on January 12, 2021, 01:32:29 PM
After Nevada's Interstate 580 was signed following opening of the several miles of new freeway between south Reno and Washoe Valley in 2012, posting of the shields was a bit inconsistent. For the most part I-580 and US 395 shields were posted side-by-side but I know there were a few I-580 standalones and also some remaining US 395 standalones.
A couple years ago the exits on I-580 from south Carson City to I-80 were renumbered to correspond to Mile 0 of I-580 rather than Mile 0 of US 395 (about 35 miles further south at Topaz Lake at the CA/NV line). At that time some of the other signs were upgraded as well, and following that project I think the I-580/US 395 concurrency is now uniformly signed. I'll check for any strays the next time I drive up to Reno.
NDOT is usually really good about signing concurrencies (Interstate-US and US-US are the only types we have), so their handling of I-580/US 395 when I-580 was first signed was a bit odd.
All the roadside reassurances along the mainline were very quickly updated to display cosigned I-580 and US 395 shields, at practically every instance. However, the one pull-through sign on this stretch (southbound 580/395 just south of I-80) had it's US 395 shield covered up with an I-580 patch (SV Oct 2011 (https://goo.gl/maps/db4NsgDoGFx9NcoaA) vs SV Oct 2016 with patch clearly discernible (https://goo.gl/maps/MYoiZygDiHXhfCcC8)) — that sign has since been replaced with a sign showing both shields, and now in FHWA font.
But, more curious, was NDOT's treatment on the side streets, at least in Reno. They replaced many freeway entrance sign packages on the side streets, where before they showed US 395 shields, they now *only* showed I-580 shields. (The few exceptions to this were a couple interchanges with recent improvements via other projects–Moana Lane's conversion to DDI and the Neil Rd/Meadowood Mall interchange construction, which displayed both shields.) Also, most BGSs on side streets got the 395 shields covered with 580 shields instead of showing both–even in instances where the BGS left room to add a 580 shield next to the 395 shield (like at the Plumb Lane SPUI: SV July 2011 (https://goo.gl/maps/qjAEaLxPH4cKfnzcA) vs SV Sept 2016 (https://goo.gl/maps/nL8SCSze9QK5ehsp9)).
In contrast, when NDOT began signing I-515 over the US 93/95 concurrency in Las Vegas circa 1994-1995, all signs were changed to show the then-new concurrency, whether reassurance or BGS or entrance packagae and mainline or side street.