Junction Signs on Concurrencies

[ethanhopkin14]

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

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.

[kphoger]

I also dislike it.

[Revive 755]

Illinois sometimes uses JCT signs for both routes.

US 50 and IL 4 north split in Lebanon

US 51 and IL 16 east split east of Pana

US 45 and IL 15 west of Fairfield

IL 34 and IL 145 south of Harrisburg

IL 16/IL 127 north split - only a IL 127 gets a JCT sign

[kphoger]

Illinois sometimes uses JCT signs for both routes.

US 50 and IL 4 north split in Lebanon

US 51 and IL 16 east split east of Pana

US 45 and IL 15 west of Fairfield

IL 34 and IL 145 south of Harrisburg

IL 16/IL 127 north split - only a IL 127 gets a JCT sign

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.

[hockeyjohn]

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.

[dkblake]

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.

[ozarkman417]

sometimes under a reassurance shield, a control point is "JCT <concurrent route> <route direction>"

example

At the end of that same concurrency, a Junction sign appears. Note that this standard practice in Arkansas.

[wanderer2575]

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.

[ethanhopkin14]

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

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

Then this:

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.   

[US71]

sometimes under a reassurance shield, a control point is "JCT <concurrent route> <route direction>"

example

At the end of that same concurrency, a Junction sign appears. Note that this standard practice in Arkansas.

ARDOT hates posting concurrencies, yet they will post trailblazers on concurrencies.

[GenExpwy]

The only one I've seen in New York is this one in Rushville 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.

[Avalanchez71]

It is still a junction.

[Ben114]

The only one I’ve seen in New York is this one in Rushville 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).

[kphoger]

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.



One shield, one plaque.
Even more precise, no confusing "JCT" language.

[ethanhopkin14]

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. 

[kphoger]

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.

[rarnold]

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.

[US71]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[Scott5114]

Then you have ODOT, which will sometimes use a junction plaque and an arrow, implying that one must turn to get to the junction.

[andy3175]

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

[Scott5114]

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!)

[hobsini2]

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

[hockeyjohn]

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.

   

[roadman65]

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.