Junction plaques and arrows

[agentsteel53]

Before 1948, there were no Interstates. (Duh) Just thought it was odd to use an interstate sign for the example picture. Youre wording suggests that interstates existed before 1948, and that they had "R or L" beneath them

it was the first photo I dug up which had an elbow arrow.

[kkt]

Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.

that depends on the practices of the individual state.  Florida, for example, has both JUNCTION and arrow assembly for state/state intersections - or, in their case, former state intersections which are now county, have not been touched since the 60s, and yield all kinds of awesome old sign finds.

a lot of states appear to do things similarly.  I cannot think of a state that formally has three levels of assembly: JUNCTION-and-arrows, arrows only, and none.  I know some states seemingly randomly omit the JUNCTION a lot of the time (California), and sometimes throw in an JUNCTION-and-arrow assembly, or just an arrow assembly, for a route that was never a state highway but is deemed a significant navigational path... but for the most part, I assume a rogue JUNCTION or arrow assembly indicates a former state highway alignment.

And, more to my point, that's useful to a driver...how, exactly?  Does already being on a state route or not have any bearing on how a driver will approach a junction or what he will do when he gets there?

Some areas are very bad about posting signs.  Drivers unfamiliar with the area might be unsure whether they got off a state route at the last turn.  Seeing a junction sign reassures them that they didn't, or not seeing a junction sign confirms their suspicion that they did.

[kphoger]

Maybe, possibly, but I doubt it.  It had never occurred to me until now that a JCT plaque might mean I was on a state route and not a local road, and I'm a roadgeek (in fact, I remain unconvinced that an assembly with arrows but no "JCT" means you're not on a state route, whereas an assembly with arrows and "JCT" means you're on one).  Joe Driver, I'm certain, would have no clue that's what it meant.  And, either way, if he were worried about having gotten off his intended route, then he would be reassured by either (a) the straight-ahead route on the assembly or (b) the reassurance sign that would presumably follow the junction.

[agentsteel53]

Some areas are very bad about posting signs.  Drivers unfamiliar with the area might be unsure whether they got off a state route at the last turn.  Seeing a junction sign reassures them that they didn't, or not seeing a junction sign confirms their suspicion that they did.

or, not seeing a junction, in that case, means it is one of those state highways with poor posting frequency.

[route29]

Nebraska has some odd-looking junction signs, but I think they do a pretty good job in conveying the information.  They just look unlike what you find in other states. 

Kansas used to have that type of junction sign, too as well as another version that said "Routes Divide" that was used where co-signed routes split at an intersection.

[agentsteel53]

Kansas used to have that type of junction sign, too as well as another version that said "Routes Divide" that was used where co-signed routes split at an intersection.

I would love to see photos.  the closest I have seen is this, which is a DOT mockup with what appear to be colored route markers

[vtk]

Here's the classic ODOT District 6 treatment I'm used to, with images taken from Google Maps Street View:

Hilliard–Rome Rd northbound approaching I-70 (not on state highway system):


US 42 northbound approaching OH 29 (simple junction, both sides):


OH 38 northbound approaching OH 736 (simple junction, intersecting route terminates):


US 40 and OH 142 eastbound approaching and just beyond the start of their overlap:


US 40 and OH 142 westbound approaching and just beyond the start of their overlap:


JCT assemblies are not present on the US 40 / OH 142 overlap.

Conclusions:

• ODOT uses JCT assemblies to alert the driver he is approaching a state highway he is not already on, even if he's not already on a state highway if the junction ahead is an interchange.
• In District 6's classic usage, up-and-over arrows before the turn are only used to indicate the driver must turn to stay on a route he's currently on, (or TO trailblazers, apparently), and that route-following-guidance assembly is not posted at the same location as the junction assembly for the intersecting route.
• ODOT District 6 doesn't seem to like using cardinal directions except on reassurance marker assemblies, and even then only sometimes.

Here are a couple of examples of the style with arrows on the JCT assemblies:

OH 4 northbound approaching OH 162 (simple junction, both sides)

And there's that up-and-leftright arrow NE2 was looking for.

US 23 northbound approaching OH 348 / OH 728 (simple junction, one intersecting route terminates on each side)


Looking for examples of these, there was at least one intersection where GMSV shows an arrowless JCT assembly where I seem to remember one with arrows.  This suggests to me that the style of JCT assembly with up-and-over arrows is more prevalent now than it was a few years ago.  But I think I was just remembering wrong.  It's probably a district-by-district thing, though my home District 6 may have recently started doing JCT with arrows.

[kphoger]

OH 4 northbound at OH 162 (simple junction, both sides)

And there's that up-and-leftright arrow NE2 was looking for.

US 23 northbound at OH 348 / OH 728 (simple junction, one intersecting route terminates on each side)

My mind translates these signs to mean...

* A junction with OH-162 may be reached by turning either left or right ahead.
* Turn left ahead to reach a junction with OH-348, or right to reach one with OH-728.

...not that the road you turn on in either case is the route in question.

[vtk]

My mind translates these signs to mean...

* A junction with OH-162 may be reached by turning either left or right ahead.
* Turn left ahead to reach a junction with OH-348, or right to reach one with OH-728.

If that was the intended message, then they should say TO instead of JCT.  But, as I don't like this use of arrows on JCT assemblies, I like your misinterpretation.

[Kacie Jane]

Kansas used to have that type of junction sign, too as well as another version that said "Routes Divide" that was used where co-signed routes split at an intersection.

I would love to see photos.  the closest I have seen is this, which is a DOT mockup with what appear to be colored route markers

And even if I had the opportunity to see that sign in color, I'd still think it was absolutely awful.

My gut tells me that 69/7 go straight ahead (which cardinal direction?), west 166 goes left, and east 166 goes right.  But it's extremely hard to parse that information given the shield placement.  I could easily see someone interpreting it as west 69/166 to the left, east 7/166 to the right.  Or maybe just west 69 to the left, east 7 to the right, and being baffled by the extra 166 shields on the bottom.

[Central Avenue]

I have it in my head that if a movement requires a turn ahead (that is, the the sign is posted in advance of the intersection), an elbow arrow is used, while if a movement requires an immediate turn (the sign is posted at the intersection itself), a straight arrow is used.

That, more than anything, is why I object to the normal double-arrow being used beneath a JCT assembly. It seems contradictory to me, because JCT means "this route is ahead" while the double-arrow implies "this route is to your immediate left and right."

So, personally, I guess I'd consider that T-shaped left-and-also-right arrow posted earlier a decent compromise, but really...if it's just a run-of-the-mill four-way crossroads that's ahead, I kinda have to wonder why it's worth including arrows on the JCT assembly at all. Keep it simple, IMO.

[Alps]

I have it in my head that if a movement requires a turn ahead (that is, the the sign is posted in advance of the intersection), an elbow arrow is used, while if a movement requires an immediate turn (the sign is posted at the intersection itself), a straight arrow is used.

That, more than anything, is why I object to the normal double-arrow being used beneath a JCT assembly. It seems contradictory to me, because JCT means "this route is ahead" while the double-arrow implies "this route is to your immediate left and right."

So, personally, I guess I'd consider that T-shaped left-and-also-right arrow posted earlier a decent compromise, but really...if it's just a run-of-the-mill four-way crossroads that's ahead, I kinda have to wonder why it's worth including arrows on the JCT assembly at all. Keep it simple, IMO.

The T-shaped arrow was used decades ago by many states, and may have been in an MUTCD for that matter, but is not supposed to be used anymore, so that would limit you to the JCT plaque.

[Central Avenue]

The T-shaped arrow was used decades ago by many states, and may have been in an MUTCD for that matter, but is not supposed to be used anymore, so that would limit you to the JCT plaque.

Well, yeah, if you're sticking strictly with the current MUTCD. But I figured we were talking more about what we think the standards should be than what they already are.

[vtk]

Incidentally, I can't seem to find the T-shaped arrow plaque in my copy (Oct 2007 version) of ODOT's Sign Design Manual.