One thing that has always been a major pet peeve of mine is when a concurrency exists and before the split of the two route, one route has a junction sign. Highway-A and Highway-B share an alignment, and before they split there is a Junction Highway-A sign going in the direction of the concurrency. So basically the sign is telling Highway-A it is about to have a junction with it's self. I understand there are concurrencies that there is an obvious dominant route, and that these junction assemblies actually give the driver a heads up their turn is coming up, but I think the language is the issue. Most of the time here in Texas they do it right where they just have arrow assemblies where the two routes diverge, but I have seen times where they didn't get it right as well.
Here is an example:
https://goo.gl/maps/kBUzjjjSghTieB1N7 (https://goo.gl/maps/kBUzjjjSghTieB1N7)
This is the concurrency of US-160 and US-191 in Arizona. The view is heading west on Westbound US-160 and Southbound US-191, yet drivers who are already on US-191 are being told you are going to have a junction with US-191.
Let me see some other examples you can think of that this happens, and your opinion of it.
I also dislike it.
Illinois sometimes uses JCT signs for both routes.
US 50 and IL 4 north split in Lebanon (https://goo.gl/maps/BRzLeTGY2mDMazgV7)
US 51 and IL 16 east split east of Pana (https://goo.gl/maps/HEKuDuuw3dVrxroD7)
US 45 and IL 15 west of Fairfield (https://goo.gl/maps/ELiq5eV91GYWzQtk8)
IL 34 and IL 145 south of Harrisburg (https://goo.gl/maps/KLPuR4ohhFPRkEbX7)
IL 16/IL 127 north split - only a IL 127 gets a JCT sign (https://goo.gl/maps/hLrCmaGB4wVRUfbcA)
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 18, 2021, 12:43:43 PM
Illinois sometimes uses JCT signs for both routes.
US 50 and IL 4 north split in Lebanon (https://goo.gl/maps/BRzLeTGY2mDMazgV7)
US 51 and IL 16 east split east of Pana (https://goo.gl/maps/HEKuDuuw3dVrxroD7)
US 45 and IL 15 west of Fairfield (https://goo.gl/maps/ELiq5eV91GYWzQtk8)
IL 34 and IL 145 south of Harrisburg (https://goo.gl/maps/KLPuR4ohhFPRkEbX7)
IL 16/IL 127 north split - only a IL 127 gets a JCT sign (https://goo.gl/maps/hLrCmaGB4wVRUfbcA)
I'm more in favor of this. And, really, it's probably the best solution. No matter what route you're actually following, it makes sense that the other one junctions off from it.
Michigan generally signs both routes at the end of the concurrency (see example below of where M-32 and M-65 diverge near Lachine, Mich.). Where it begins only the route joining the concurrency is shown.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49984684072_dbb0791f2e_z.jpg)
Another example near me: US 2/US 7 NB in Colchester, VT, heading northbound with a junction sign for US 2:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5856625,-73.1658515,3a,75y,342.27h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfC3xes2EcGQYlBqjSA0f6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I don't mind this in this instance since, like in the OP example, one route continues straight and one (the one signed on the road) turns off. Moreover, as with the OP example, the two routes cover very different corridors after the split: US 2 goes from here to the Lake Champlain Islands while 7 continues north along the eastern shore of Lake Champlain, so if you want US 2 and miss the turn, you either need to turn around or wait until Alburgh in 40 miles or so.
I agree that the language is imprecise, but don't see a more precise message that takes up equal signage.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on January 12, 2021, 04:51:34 PM
sometimes under a reassurance shield, a control point is "JCT <concurrent route> <route direction>"
example (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1207816,-93.6304114,3a,39.4y,198.77h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swerdHnlngrp_QJrGwHAXWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
At the end of that same concurrency, a Junction sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.110694,-93.5319357,3a,75y,151.2h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbfmPwlHXN1amHJ0ACZBHvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) appears. Note that this standard practice in Arkansas.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 18, 2021, 10:06:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/kBUzjjjSghTieB1N7 (https://goo.gl/maps/kBUzjjjSghTieB1N7)
This is the concurrency of US-160 and US-191 in Arizona. The view is heading west on Westbound US-160 and Southbound US-191, yet drivers who are already on US-191 are being told you are going to have a junction with US-191.
I understand that technically one is already on 191. But in this case, I interpret the sign as telling me that the routes are splitting ahead and 191 is the route that makes a turning movement so I should prepare for that. Thus, I don't have a problem with it.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 18, 2021, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 18, 2021, 10:06:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/kBUzjjjSghTieB1N7 (https://goo.gl/maps/kBUzjjjSghTieB1N7)
This is the concurrency of US-160 and US-191 in Arizona. The view is heading west on Westbound US-160 and Southbound US-191, yet drivers who are already on US-191 are being told you are going to have a junction with US-191.
I understand that technically one is already on 191. But in this case, I interpret the sign as telling me that the routes are splitting ahead and 191 is the route that makes a turning movement so I should prepare for that. Thus, I don't have a problem with it.
I respect that and even understand the message being conveyed, but in contrast, I am used to this happening on concurrencies:
https://goo.gl/maps/UmUof4WdWUZi2znq5 (https://goo.gl/maps/UmUof4WdWUZi2znq5)
This is the Northbound US-79 and Northbound SH-6 concurrency in Hearn, TX. This is the first mention that the concurrency is going to end, just mentioning if you need to stay on US-79, get in the left lane.
Then you see this:
https://goo.gl/maps/KEDDHVXqVxz3Kuuy6 (https://goo.gl/maps/KEDDHVXqVxz3Kuuy6)
Then this:
https://goo.gl/maps/Mv69PMfWjn9dvpQX8 (https://goo.gl/maps/Mv69PMfWjn9dvpQX8)
Texas is pretty consistent in signing the end of a concurrency this way. There isn't a JCT sign in the sequence because Texas assumes the driver knows they are following one route or the other and treat the pavement as being shared by both routes. I am not saying one is right over the other, I just got very used to the end of concurrencies being handled this way that when I see it signed the other way it's kinda jarring. For a brief second when I was traveling south on US-191, I thought to myself, "did US-191 end?" Even though I am smarter than that and know it ends at the border at Douglas, AZ, it just kinda made me think for a split second.
Again, Texas doesn't always do this; there are some instances where they have a junction sign for a road you are already on, I just at this moment can't remember where I have seen them.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on January 18, 2021, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on January 12, 2021, 04:51:34 PM
sometimes under a reassurance shield, a control point is "JCT <concurrent route> <route direction>"
example (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1207816,-93.6304114,3a,39.4y,198.77h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swerdHnlngrp_QJrGwHAXWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
At the end of that same concurrency, a Junction sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.110694,-93.5319357,3a,75y,151.2h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbfmPwlHXN1amHJ0ACZBHvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) appears. Note that this standard practice in Arkansas.
ARDOT hates posting concurrencies, yet they will post trailblazers on concurrencies.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50474316598_26b659bb51_d.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50475058062_192ae190f2_d.jpg)
The only one I've seen in New York is this one in Rushville (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7615167,-77.2269571,3a,24.9y,181.28h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svwMafRo0NCy7DNQ-XvHKcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on the 245/247 overlap, which has bugged me for over a half-century (that's the route we take when visiting relatives in Auburn).
What I would like to see is a TURN AHEAD plaque added to the MUTCD. So for example this would become:
SOUTH
245
TURN
AHEAD
... followed by advance-turn and turn assemblies. If there is also an actual junction, then the JCT xx and yy TURN AHEAD signs would be in the same assembly. Such a plaque could also be useful wherever a route turns at any intersection.
It is still a junction.
Quote from: GenExpwy on January 19, 2021, 05:57:01 AM
The only one I’ve seen in New York is this one in Rushville (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7615167,-77.2269571,3a,24.9y,181.28h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svwMafRo0NCy7DNQ-XvHKcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on the 245/247 overlap, which has bugged me for over a half-century (that’s the route we take when visiting relatives in Auburn).
What I would like to see is a TURN AHEAD plaque added to the MUTCD. So for example this would become:
SOUTH
245
TURN
AHEAD
... followed by advance-turn and turn assemblies. If there is also an actual junction, then the JCT xx and yy TURN AHEAD signs would be in the same assembly. Such a plaque could also be useful wherever a route turns at any intersection.
This is the closest thing we have (at the south end of the MA 122 / 140 concurrency).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50629609806_4f8177950c_z.jpg)
Quote from: dkblake on January 18, 2021, 02:25:35 PM
Another example near me: US 2/US 7 NB in Colchester, VT, heading northbound with a junction sign for US 2:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5856625,-73.1658515,3a,75y,342.27h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfC3xes2EcGQYlBqjSA0f6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I don't mind this in this instance since, like in the OP example, one route continues straight and one (the one signed on the road) turns off. Moreover, as with the OP example, the two routes cover very different corridors after the split: US 2 goes from here to the Lake Champlain Islands while 7 continues north along the eastern shore of Lake Champlain, so if you want US 2 and miss the turn, you either need to turn around or wait until Alburgh in 40 miles or so.
I agree that the language is imprecise, but don't see a more precise message that takes up equal signage.
Easy.
(https://i.imgur.com/LuzprnK.png)
One shield, one plaque.
Even more precise, no confusing "JCT" language.
https://goo.gl/maps/FJwbdPXBtSi3oWFg7 (https://goo.gl/maps/FJwbdPXBtSi3oWFg7)
Here's one that is goofy. This is technically on US-281, not a concurrency. It is telling you that you are about to intersect US-183 and US-190, but a US-281 shield is also present. Technically it is right and wrong, because, if you back out of the street view image and look at the satellite image, the bigger roads are the routing for US-281 for the truck route. So in the linked shot you are on US-281 about to intersect US-281 Truck Route, just the banner is missing. So it is both right and wrong.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 25, 2021, 01:18:14 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/FJwbdPXBtSi3oWFg7 (https://goo.gl/maps/FJwbdPXBtSi3oWFg7)
Here's one that is goofy. This is technically on US-281, not a concurrency. It is telling you that you are about to intersect US-183 and US-190, but a US-281 shield is also present. Technically it is right and wrong, because, if you back out of the street view image and look at the satellite image, the bigger roads are the routing for US-281 for the truck route. So in the linked shot you are on US-281 about to intersect US-281 Truck Route, just the banner is missing. So it is both right and wrong.
Fixed for you.
You can't put [
.img] tags around a URL that isn't a photo.
Why not use a sign that says "Routes Diverge?" The opposite sign could be "Routes Converge" for routes that will be concurrent.
Junction doesn't work because you are already on the route, just like routes that exit from themselves.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 25, 2021, 01:18:14 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/FJwbdPXBtSi3oWFg7 (https://goo.gl/maps/FJwbdPXBtSi3oWFg7)
Here's one that is goofy. This is technically on US-281, not a concurrency. It is telling you that you are about to intersect US-183 and US-190, but a US-281 shield is also present. Technically it is right and wrong, because, if you back out of the street view image and look at the satellite image, the bigger roads are the routing for US-281 for the truck route. So in the linked shot you are on US-281 about to intersect US-281 Truck Route, just the banner is missing. So it is both right and wrong.
I see that in Arkansas a lot, especially along state routes.
Quote from: rarnold on January 25, 2021, 08:47:10 PM
Why not use a sign that says "Routes Diverge?" The opposite sign could be "Routes Converge" for routes that will be concurrent.
Junction doesn't work because you are already on the route, just like routes that exit from themselves.
Arrows are much more easily understood. There's nothing wrong with the assembly I posted up-thread, is there?
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/LuzprnK.png)
Then you have ODOT, which will sometimes use a junction plaque and an arrow, implying that one must turn to get to the junction.
Quote from: rarnold on January 25, 2021, 08:47:10 PM
Why not use a sign that says "Routes Diverge?" The opposite sign could be "Routes Converge" for routes that will be concurrent.
Junction doesn't work because you are already on the route, just like routes that exit from themselves.
Wyoming uses "Routes Divide." Here is an example on US 26-89-189-191 southbound:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kMdv2vH8GtkoFaw49
Quote from: andy3175 on January 26, 2021, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: rarnold on January 25, 2021, 08:47:10 PM
Why not use a sign that says "Routes Diverge?" The opposite sign could be "Routes Converge" for routes that will be concurrent.
Junction doesn't work because you are already on the route, just like routes that exit from themselves.
Wyoming uses "Routes Divide." Here is an example on US 26-89-189-191 southbound:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kMdv2vH8GtkoFaw49
What you've really got to worry about is when you see "Routes Multiply"...
(I also like the nearby "No Snowplowing [times listed]" sign that's got a white background rather than a yellow one. So strictly speaking, it's not a warning to drivers that the road will not be plowed overnight, but rather a prohibition on anyone trying to plow the road!)
I've always preferred the way Wisconsin does this. Here's a few examples.
44/73 near Manchester.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.691573,-89.0351795,3a,24.9y,105.84h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1BbJ2nlOvPhhTyXsRk9yxA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Here's one on 22 where County CS is cosigned before leaving at County Q near Poynette.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4018776,-89.3276444,3a,75y,6.61h,89.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB7AwlPY1jXsFu81zJwY0SQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Quote from: andy3175 on January 26, 2021, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: rarnold on January 25, 2021, 08:47:10 PM
Why not use a sign that says "Routes Diverge?" The opposite sign could be "Routes Converge" for routes that will be concurrent.
Junction doesn't work because you are already on the route, just like routes that exit from themselves.
Wyoming uses "Routes Divide." Here is an example on US 26-89-189-191 southbound:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kMdv2vH8GtkoFaw49
Your "Routes Divide" in Wyoming sign reminded me of this photo (cropped to isolate the sign) from George R. Stewart's 1950 book,
U.S. 40, showing the end of the US-24 and US-40 concurrency near Limon, Colo.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50879183027_f32685c59a_z.jpg)
Florida does it on US 441 in Holopaw from US 192.
I have seen them elsewhere in the state as well. It is more common then you think.
Annoying but common.
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2021, 11:08:18 AM
Quote from: rarnold on January 25, 2021, 08:47:10 PM
Why not use a sign that says "Routes Diverge?" The opposite sign could be "Routes Converge" for routes that will be concurrent.
Junction doesn't work because you are already on the route, just like routes that exit from themselves.
Arrows are much more easily understood. There's nothing wrong with the assembly I posted up-thread, is there?
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/LuzprnK.png)
No, not at all. Was just thinking out loud.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 26, 2021, 03:41:34 PM
Wyoming uses "Routes Divide." Here is an example on US 26-89-189-191 southbound:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/kMdv2vH8GtkoFaw49
I really like this! Just add the shields to the sign and use the word diverge instead of divide.
In Inverness, FL a JCT US 41 sign appears on US 41 SB before the concurrency starts.
Quote from: dkblake on January 18, 2021, 02:25:35 PM
I agree that the language is imprecise, but don't see a more precise message that takes up equal signage.
In my opinion, the correct message would be
WEST
US-2
<-
|
Yes, it's three signs, but the message is clearer.
It has always bothered me that the end of 20/59's grand concurrency is labeled like this. The exit should be for 59 since it's the one that has to exit, and because 20 is longer and more important. Maybe 59 is longer than 20 in MS, but at this point they would have an equal distance.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3501728,-88.7456682,3a,75y,257.49h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRR-4C3Nzj6T0uefONz31wA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
Quote from: dkblake on January 18, 2021, 02:25:35 PM
Another example near me: US 2/US 7 NB in Colchester, VT, heading northbound with a junction sign for US 2:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5856625,-73.1658515,3a,75y,342.27h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfC3xes2EcGQYlBqjSA0f6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I don't mind this in this instance since, like in the OP example, one route continues straight and one (the one signed on the road) turns off. Moreover, as with the OP example, the two routes cover very different corridors after the split: US 2 goes from here to the Lake Champlain Islands while 7 continues north along the eastern shore of Lake Champlain, so if you want US 2 and miss the turn, you either need to turn around or wait until Alburgh in 40 miles or so.
I agree that the language is imprecise, but don't see a more precise message that takes up equal signage.
Easy.
(https://i.imgur.com/LuzprnK.png)
One shield, one plaque.
Even more precise, no confusing "JCT" language.
In VT, the "JCT" sign is the initial notice of an upcoming major intersection. After the JCT sign may follow the above signs with the bent arrows directing cars through an intersection with turn lanes or driveways surrounding. For another intersection (Tafts Corners, where VT 2A and US 2 intersect in Williston), see https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4524088,-73.1112962,3a,75y,198.01h,100.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCa5XMBoXXDkOkCkSdGiGig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.4524088,-73.1112962,3a,75y,198.01h,100.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCa5XMBoXXDkOkCkSdGiGig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), then https://www.google.com/maps/@44.450835,-73.1110732,3a,75y,198.01h,98.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-pi0yGrb-oycAmSRSylNNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.450835,-73.1110732,3a,75y,198.01h,98.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-pi0yGrb-oycAmSRSylNNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
My point is that if the state uses "JCT X" as the initial notification, but you want to avoid the language because it's a split of a concurrency, then the "grammatically correct" solution would be something like a larger sign diagramming the upcoming intersection. Doing that would be a larger sign, and I feel like most drivers understand the meaning of "JCT 2" despite it not being quite correct.
I found another. Worst thing about this is, you are on US-60 and US-60 is the through route. The intersection was redone so that US-60 turns right, but in actuality US-60 is the through route. Then again, this is New Mexico.
https://goo.gl/maps/b4PrAX8Myyj2mvRu7 (https://goo.gl/maps/b4PrAX8Myyj2mvRu7)
I found a weird one this weekend. Taking US36 from Estes Park to Lyons, which used to be concurrent with CO66, when you intersect with the current western end of CO66, the sign says "JCT: US36".
Chris