Missing reassurance shields in concurrencies

[ilpt4u]

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

[SkyPesos]

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?

[ilpt4u]

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

[Rothman]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[epzik8]

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.

[wanderer2575]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[GaryV]

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.)

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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?

[ethanhopkin14]

https://goo.gl/maps/6GCPCcwRwX7izgt97

This is actually an entrance ramp to enter the Eastbound US-290 and SH-71 concurrency. 

[roadfro]

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 vs SV Oct 2016 with patch clearly discernible) — 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 vs SV Sept 2016).

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.