Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[US 89]

In Utah, as in most places, interstates take priority over US routes which take priority over state routes. Overlaps between equal route types will generally use the mileage of whichever route carries a greater amount of through traffic, is more significant/recognizable, or is clearly set up as the through route. This usually winds up giving the lower numbered route priority anyway but that is not always the case. We have:

I-15/I-80
I-15/I-84
US 6/US 50 - while both routes share the same mileage here, the overlap is inventoried and legislated as part of US 6
US 6/US 89
US 6/US 191
US 40/US 189
US 40/US 191
US 50/US 89
US 89/US 91
US 163/US 191 - 163 is unsigned, but this does exist per UDOT materials
SR 48/SR 68
SR 68/SR 85
SR 118/SR 120

One noteworthy thing is that business loops are entirely unofficial in Utah, and mileposts on them are entirely related to the state or US highway they overlap (or, for the two locally maintained business loops in the state, simply don't exist). This is in contrast to states like Idaho, where business loops are their own thing and their mileage trumps even any US highways they might be concurrent with.

[epzik8]

In Virginia, I-64 has to use I-81's exit numbers as it enters and leaves I-81.

[Rothman]

Kentucky does not officially recognize concurrencies. The lower number of two routes on the same system always takes precedence. And mile markers for all routes except interstates and parkways reset at county lines.

The best instance I can think of where the lower-numbered route takes precedence is in Letcher County in the Isom community near the Knott County line. KY 15 is obviously the through route, and it has a signed concurrency with KY 160. But there is also a short concurrency with KY 7. That section of road is officially known as KY 7 in the official route logs and any mile markers posted would carry KY 7's mileage. Mileage stops and restarts at the intersections where the concurrencies begin and end. Good example is KY 11 and KY 15, which have a concurrency that runs most of the east-west length of Powell County. Both routes enter northbound from Wolfe County and intersect at Slade, adjacent to the Mountain Parkway's Exit 33. The concurrency through Stanton and Clay City carries KY 11's mileage. KY 15's mileage is "suspended," if you will, resumes where KY 11 north splits off. So you're about 20 miles into Powell County from Wolfe on KY 15 but the mile markers start counting up from around 4 or so.

The obvious exception to the "lower number on two same systems" rule is I-75 and I-64.

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontiguous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like the log is more about keeping track of milepoints for determining the limits of capital projects (e.g., since FMIS/FHWA require funding by asset in projects) rather than route recognition.  If you have duplicate mileposts, your developers/designers don't know what to enter into your systems (which FMIS couldn't handle anyway) and then you double count the project accomplishments on the back end even if you could.  One set of mileposts per segment just keeps things simpler, despite concurrencies. NYSDOT's reference markers/mileposts work similarly.

[Quillz]

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontiguous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

[Henry]

The Penna Turnpike is followed by four different Interstates: I-76, I-70, I-276 and I-95. Between New Stanton and Breezewood (the two endpoints for the I-70 concurrency), I-76's mileposts and exit numbers are used. They continue to increase after I-76 leaves to enter Philadelphia and I-276 begins bypassing to the north, and even when I-95 comes in to cross the Delaware and join the NJTP on the other side.

FYI, former exit 358 is now exit 42.

Can't believe I overlooked that one! Of course, there was no interchange between I-95 and the Turnpike until the former was rerouted to follow the latter, so that may be an exception.

[JoePCool14]

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontiguous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

Wisconsin would be a state that's pretty thorough about signing concurrencies. Doesn't matter if it's an expressway, freeway, or 2-lane road.

An example of how WisDOT handles mileage on a non-interstate would be US-151 in the SW region. It carries STH-35 and US-51 over/near the border with Iowa before they split off before Dickeyville. And then later, it's concurrent with US-18 towards Madison. US-151, despite being a higher number than both other US route designations, takes the lead when it comes to mileage. Granted, US-151 is an expressway/freeway throughout this area, so it's logical to do this.

All routes are signed well on all segments though.

[Amaury]

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

I can definitely confirm Washington signs their concurrencies, as per my OP. LOL

[hbelkins]

Kentucky does not officially recognize concurrencies. The lower number of two routes on the same system always takes precedence. And mile markers for all routes except interstates and parkways reset at county lines.

The best instance I can think of where the lower-numbered route takes precedence is in Letcher County in the Isom community near the Knott County line. KY 15 is obviously the through route, and it has a signed concurrency with KY 160. But there is also a short concurrency with KY 7. That section of road is officially known as KY 7 in the official route logs and any mile markers posted would carry KY 7's mileage. Mileage stops and restarts at the intersections where the concurrencies begin and end. Good example is KY 11 and KY 15, which have a concurrency that runs most of the east-west length of Powell County. Both routes enter northbound from Wolfe County and intersect at Slade, adjacent to the Mountain Parkway's Exit 33. The concurrency through Stanton and Clay City carries KY 11's mileage. KY 15's mileage is "suspended," if you will, resumes where KY 11 north splits off. So you're about 20 miles into Powell County from Wolfe on KY 15 but the mile markers start counting up from around 4 or so.

The obvious exception to the "lower number on two same systems" rule is I-75 and I-64.

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontiguous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like the log is more about keeping track of milepoints for determining the limits of capital projects (e.g., since FMIS/FHWA require funding by asset in projects) rather than route recognition.  If you have duplicate mileposts, your developers/designers don't know what to enter into your systems (which FMIS couldn't handle anyway) and then you double count the project accomplishments on the back end even if you could.  One set of mileposts per segment just keeps things simpler, despite concurrencies. NYSDOT's reference markers/mileposts work similarly.

Newer versions of the map don't include concurrencies. Older maps clearly show concurrencies like KY 11/KY 15 and US 25/421, but more recent maps show only the lower-numbered route -- both state maps and the individual county maps.

At least one highway district -- Somerset-based D-8 -- has begun signing what would normally be signed as concurrencies elsewhere as "To Route NN."

[Big John]

Wisconsin would be a state that's pretty thorough about signing concurrencies. Doesn't matter if it's an expressway, freeway, or 2-lane road.

An example of how WisDOT handles mileage on a non-interstate would be US-151 in the SW region. It carries STH-35 and US-61 over/near the border with Iowa before they split off before Dickeyville. And then later, it's concurrent with US-18 towards Madison. US-151, despite being a higher number than both other US route designations, takes the lead when it comes to mileage. Granted, US-151 is an expressway/freeway throughout this area, so it's logical to do this.

All routes are signed well on all segments though.

Slight correction

[JoePCool14]

Wisconsin would be a state that's pretty thorough about signing concurrencies. Doesn't matter if it's an expressway, freeway, or 2-lane road.

An example of how WisDOT handles mileage on a non-interstate would be US-151 in the SW region. It carries STH-35 and US-61 over/near the border with Iowa before they split off before Dickeyville. And then later, it's concurrent with US-18 towards Madison. US-151, despite being a higher number than both other US route designations, takes the lead when it comes to mileage. Granted, US-151 is an expressway/freeway throughout this area, so it's logical to do this.

All routes are signed well on all segments though.

Slight correction

Thank you, I thought 51 sounded wrong when I was writing that. Guess I'm too tired then!

[andrepoiy]

I believe there is only one freeway-freeway concurrency (Highway 403 and the QEW) in Ontario.

In this case it follow's the QEW's mileage, presumably because that was the original QEW right-of-way.

[Avalanchez71]

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontinuous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.  They just are terrible with signing the few Business Interstate routes that they have.

[fillup420]

Along the Spine in North Carolina, I-40 uses I-85 mile markers because I-85 was there first.  I-74 uses the I-73 mile markers probably due to the north-south nature of the US-220 entire corridor.  But if you believe the signage plans, the northern end of I-77 might change over to use I-74 mile markers starting at the Virginia State Line.  (I'll believe it when I see it).

whats funny is that I-40 is the more heavily traveled route by far, on either end of the concurrency.

[Rothman]

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontinuous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.  They just are terrible with signing the few Business Interstate routes that they have.

I've found GA's signage to be lacking, actually, with those overhead span wire signs missing routes and the like.

They do sign their state routes which duplicate U.S. routes and the like, but trying to follow a certain route from start to finish can be a fun challenge.

See also MA and the limitations of their SGSes.

[US 89]

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontinuous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.  They just are terrible with signing the few Business Interstate routes that they have.

I've found GA's signage to be lacking, actually, with those overhead span wire signs missing routes and the like.

They do sign their state routes which duplicate U.S. routes and the like, but trying to follow a certain route from start to finish can be a fun challenge.

See also MA and the limitations of their SGSes.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the GA overhead spanwires, especially because the signs will slide around on them in the wind (or fall off) over the years. It can be quite difficult to figure out if what you're seeing is telling you to stay straight for whatever route or if there's a turn it's telling you to take.

In my experience around GA and north FL though, I do think Georgia has better signage. Florida tends to omit a lot of reassurance shields from places where they would be helpful and would exist in GA.

[vdeane]

I believe there is only one freeway-freeway concurrency (Highway 403 and the QEW) in Ontario.

In this case it follow's the QEW's mileage, presumably because that was the original QEW right-of-way.

Plus the intended alignment of 403 was actually built as part of 407.

[Avalanchez71]

So, they don't officially recognize them but they shield them anyway?  KY has a whole lot of discontinuous routes?  I'm not so sure.

Sounds like it, yes. California is the same way: there are many non-contiguous routes because concurrencies do not technically exist. CA-1 is broken into several alignments because of US-101, for example. If there is signage (and it's very inconsistent), it's just for motorist aid. I don't know if other states operate that way, seems most others will sign concurrencies (to an excessive degree).

Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.  They just are terrible with signing the few Business Interstate routes that they have.

I've found GA's signage to be lacking, actually, with those overhead span wire signs missing routes and the like.

They do sign their state routes which duplicate U.S. routes and the like, but trying to follow a certain route from start to finish can be a fun challenge.

See also MA and the limitations of their SGSes.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the GA overhead spanwires, especially because the signs will slide around on them in the wind (or fall off) over the years. It can be quite difficult to figure out if what you're seeing is telling you to stay straight for whatever route or if there's a turn it's telling you to take.

In my experience around GA and north FL though, I do think Georgia has better signage. Florida tends to omit a lot of reassurance shields from places where they would be helpful and would exist in GA.

There are no signs at in Steinhatchee, FL. 

[Quillz]

Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.

I used to think that signing all concurrencies was a good idea. But now I kind of prefer the less-is-more approach, especially when there's a clear instance of one route/number being far more traveled than the others. Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point. I think Oregon has the right approach of not signing concurrencies for redundant routes, instead using them as business loops where they'll have unique mileage.

[US 89]

Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point.

Huh? Colorado is at or near the top of the list for worst concurrency signage in the US. There are no standing US 87 shields in the state. Good luck following US 6 or US 85 through Denver without signs…

[JoePCool14]

Georgia is notorious for signing concurrencies to an excessive degree in most respects.

I used to think that signing all concurrencies was a good idea. But now I kind of prefer the less-is-more approach, especially when there's a clear instance of one route/number being far more traveled than the others. Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point. I think Oregon has the right approach of not signing concurrencies for redundant routes, instead using them as business loops where they'll have unique mileage.

The problem with Georgia is how so many of their routes are concurrent in the first place. You shouldn't have all these instances where 4 routes share the same stretch of road. Split some of them up and give each segment new numbers.

[odditude]

The Penna Turnpike is followed by four different Interstates: I-76, I-70, I-276 and I-95. Between New Stanton and Breezewood (the two endpoints for the I-70 concurrency), I-76's mileposts and exit numbers are used. They continue to increase after I-76 leaves to enter Philadelphia and I-276 begins bypassing to the north, and even when I-95 comes in to cross the Delaware and join the NJTP on the other side.

FYI, former exit 358 is now exit 42.

Can't believe I overlooked that one! Of course, there was no interchange between I-95 and the Turnpike until the former was rerouted to follow the latter, so that may be an exception.

the mileposts also follow I-95 now (IIRC, there was a period when they didn't).

[dbz77]

We can tell which route is the primary route based on which one comes first on the reassurance shields, whether it's on top or on the left.

This isn't really reliable. In California, concurrencies technically do not exist at all. You have implied concurrencies, i.e. one route will exist but not signed. This isn't very consistent and more often than not, they do seem to be signed, but the order doesn't make sense. For example, during the brief CA-23/US-101 concurrency (more technically, CA-23 doesn't exist for a few miles while 101 bridges the gap), new signage in this area actually puts the 23 shield on top of the 101 shield. Not side to side. If anything, 101 shields should be on top. But they aren't. But then when you see CA-168/US-395, they are lined up side to side.

This does not make sense. The 5/10 concurrency in downtown L.A. clearly exists, as does the 405/22 concurrency in Seal Beach.

[bulldog1979]

This does not make sense. The 5/10 concurrency in downtown L.A. clearly exists, as does the 405/22 concurrency in Seal Beach.

It makes sense in the following fashion. Each highway in California has a legal definition in the Streets & Highways Code. What we all I-5 is "Route 5", US 101 is "Route 101" and both SR 8 and I-8 are just parts of "Route 8" that use different signs. These legal definitions don't overlap, so there is a gap in one route's legal definition when it overlaps another route. Caltrans may sign a concurrency to connect the sections on either side of a gap, but the route doesn't technically exist there.

[theroadwayone]

Especially some places like Arizona and Colorado that will sign their US routes concurrent with their interstates across the entire state, it just seems unnecessary at that point.

Huh? Colorado is at or near the top of the list for worst concurrency signage in the US. There are no standing US 87 shields in the state. Good luck following US 6 or US 85 through Denver without signs…

No one:
Colorado: What are concurrencies?

[jp the roadgeek]

The New York Thruway's mileposts are apparently more important than those of the Interstate routes that travel on it. Interestingly enough, the mileposts and exit numbers do reset on both I-90 and I-87, unlike the Kansas Turnpike situation mentioned upthread. And due to the Thruway's unorthodox directional routing, the mileposts start out okay at the southern end, but once you get to the east-west section what ends up happening is [pause to catch your breath] the mileposts are ascending backwards, with mile 120 or whatever in the Albany area, and mile 450 or whatever at Ripley at the PA line.

I-87 technically has 4 and I-90 has  3 different sets of Mileposts.  I-87 has the Deegan (about 8 miles), the Thruway mainline (MP 0-MP 148), a brief concurrency with I-90 (using one set of I-90’s mileposts), then the Northway (about 185 miles).  I-90 has the Thruway mainline (347 miles, but signed MP 496-MP 149), Free 90 (briefly concurrent with I-87; 21 miles), and then the Berkshire Spur (18 miles, marked B6-B24, as it measures from the I-87 junction).