Missing reassurance shields in concurrencies

[SkyPesos]

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
Missing US 22 West
Missing US 40 West
This one has since been corrected, but Missing I-44 West (how did MoDot mess this one up )
Missing US 40 West/US 61 North at I-64 West/MO 141 interchange

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[hockeyjohn]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

All US or state highway concurrencies on Interstate Highways in New Mexico.

[jmacswimmer]

-I-83/US 322, but not the one you'd expect (and it probably won't be around much longer with the ongoing reconstruction in that area).
-I-83/I-695 is fully signed here, but then a quarter mile later you have this.
-The PA Turnpike used to be missing an I-70 shield just west of Breezewood, but this one has been fixed.
-I-287 missing from an overhead just west of the Tappan Zee.

[CapeCodder]

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.

[Life in Paradise]

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.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I thought I had read somewhere that Colorado doesn't sign concurrent routes along interstates.

[US 89]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[gonealookin]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[Scott5114]

This one has since been corrected, but Missing I-44 West (how did MoDot mess this one up )

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.

[hbelkins]

Tennessee is terrible about this. Signage of concurrencies, especially between US and state routes, or state primary and secondary routes, is extremely spotty.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[ozarkman417]

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".

[OCGuy81]

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.

[SkyPesos]

This one has since been corrected, but Missing I-44 West (how did MoDot mess this one up )

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.

[cl94]

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 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

[PHLBOS]

I-287 missing from an overhead 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.

[cl94]

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"

[Bickendan]

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.

[TheStranger]

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

[thspfc]

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.

[US 89]

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

Here's the thing about US 6 in Mack, though - according to CDOT's own data, 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.