Unsigned concurrencies

[mcdonaat]

Driving along LA 75 today (River Road), I ran into LA 141 turning to the right, towards the river, and using the right-facing arrow showing that it started at LA 75. Due to the curve of the river, I decided to take the route at the southern terminus and follow it along the river. Sure enough, I was following LA 141 down the curve of the river, when I met a sign that said "LA 141 Ends in 0.7 Miles." Since LA 141 is actually a continuous route, and the Louisiana DOTD doesn't do routes in sections anymore, LA 141 actually follows an unsigned concurrency with LA 75.

I only know of one other instance, where LA 10 and US 61 are paired together, but only US 61 is signed, not LA 10. Any other instances of unsigned concurrencies around the country? I'm not talking about hidden designations, but routes that supposedly end at an intersection, and pick up about five or ten miles later, with no signing in between. Ghost sections, if you will.

[vtk]

There are several around I-465 in Indianapolis.

A few miles of the west end of OH 16 aren't very well signed, though I think it's the maps that are the worst about ignoring it.  Overlapping both US 40 and US 62, this state route is often overlooked in downtown Columbus.  Its western terminus is at Marconi Blvd / Civic Center Dr on the east bank of the Scioto River; I think that cross-street was once part of US 33 SEbound but now it just seems like an arbitrary place to stop.

[DTComposer]

Some California, off the top of my head:
CA-1 along US-101 between Seacliff and Las Cruces, and spotty between Las Cruces and Oxnard;
CA-16 along I-5/US-50 between Woodland and Sacramento (used to have better signage);
CA-99 along US-50/I-5 in Sacramento (ditto);
I know there's plenty more.

[NE2]

Colorado. New Mexico.

[US71]

Arkansas is notorious for it.

Or they do silly trailblazers

[Takumi]

Almost every concurrency involving a secondary route in Virginia. I think I've seen two or three actually signed.

[xonhulu]

Oregon's relatively good at signing concurrencies, but they don't sign any of OR 99's several duplexes with I-5.

There are a few I-84 trailblazers that don't mention concurrent US 30, but in general US 30 is pretty well-signed along I-84.

[hbelkins]

Tennessee has several of these.

[Henry]

Don't forget I-595 east of DC! You'll never see signs for that anywhere, only US 50.

[OCGuy81]

Believe it or not, I-10 and US 90 share pavement through most of the Houston area.  But good luck finding any mention of 90.

[corco]

Wyoming is amazing at signing all concurrencies. US-87 gets equal billing with I-25 nearly everywhere.

Idaho is good at it too- although mentions of US-30 along I-84 are slipping through Boise. Concurrencies with differing route classes tend to only have the dominant route signed at junctions, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

Arizona is pretty good at it- State Route 99 is the weird one. It's not really signed where it's concurrent with I-40 Business in Winslow, but then once you get on I-40 BAM


The SR 77 concurrency along I-40 isn't really signed either, and then a couple concurrent business loops aren't perfect.

Washington is also good at it- reassurance shields almost always acknowledge the concurrency, but there the dominant route really is the only one that gets mentioned on junction signage.

[huskeroadgeek]

As suggested above, US 85 is concurrent with much of I-25 in Colorado and all of I-25 in New Mexico but is not signed. Similarly, US 52 is concurrent with most of I-94 in Minnesota, but is not signed.

[bugo]

Arkansas is one of the worst.  They will refuse to sign 1/4 mile long duplexes.  It's ridiculous.

Oklahoma is usually great, but OK 66 through OKC is largely unsigned.  It is almost impossible to follow it from I-35 north of the Turner Turnpike interchange all the way to the I-44/OK 66 interchange west of town.  Tulsa, on the other hand, signs OK 66 very well.  They even accidentally posted a US 66 sign (not pointed to I-44/OK 66, but rather towards 51st Street):

[bugo]

Believe it or not, I-10 and US 90 share pavement through most of the Houston area.  But good luck finding any mention of 90.

US 67 and 77 aren't signed in much of the Dallas metro.  Going east on I-30, US 67 appears out of nowhere. 

[bulldog1979]

US 223 in northwest Lenawee County has an unsigned, useless concurrency with US 127; US 223 officially follows US 127 from their junction to the intersection with US 12 according to AASHTO. There is some "TO US 223" signage present at the US 12 intersection.

[SSOWorld]

Minnesota drops the ball with US 12 and US 52.  East of I-494 US 12 follows I-394 and 94 through MSP to WI.  The next sign appears in Wisconsin.  (There are BGSs saying US 12 followi I-(3)94 - meaning that it is mentioned once, and at the I-394/94 interchage, the sign bridges do say 12 on them to tell drivers where to go.  52 is worse.  no mention beyond Saint Paul to the Northwest - as it follows I-94 West to Fargo.  There is - again, a mention of 52 follow 94 West on the NB approaching 94.  It re-appears, partially, in North Dakota.

Speaking of North Dakota, only on the BGSs and side-street trailblazers.  Same for 29 and US 81.

[Takumi]

Don't forget I-595 east of DC! You'll never see signs for that anywhere, only US 50.

The BGS's on the Beltway clearly have room for an I-595 shield, though.

[apeman33]

Kansas signs every duplex/multiplex/concurrency although I've seen some inconsistency in the Kansas City area. It can be hard to tell where U.S. 169 is going but that may have to do with the fact that they've changed it's routing twice (at least) in the last 15 years.

[Mapmikey]

Almost every concurrency involving a secondary route in Virginia. I think I've seen two or three actually signed.

This varies by VDOT district...

District 8 has a fair number of signed concurrencies of secondary routes along primary routes.

Mapmikey

[US71]

Kansas signs every duplex/multiplex/concurrency although I've seen some inconsistency in the Kansas City area. It can be hard to tell where U.S. 169 is going but that may have to do with the fact that they've changed it's routing twice (at least) in the last 15 years.

I noticed in the Overland Park area last year that signage is irregular. In some places, 169 isn't posted. In others, it's 56 that's "invisible".

[texaskdog]

Minnesota drops the ball with US 12 and US 52.  East of I-494 US 12 follows I-394 and 94 through MSP to WI.  The next sign appears in Wisconsin.  (There are BGSs saying US 12 followi I-(3)94 - meaning that it is mentioned once, and at the I-394/94 interchage, the sign bridges do say 12 on them to tell drivers where to go.  52 is worse.  no mention beyond Saint Paul to the Northwest - as it follows I-94 West to Fargo.  There is - again, a mention of 52 follow 94 West on the NB approaching 94.  It re-appears, partially, in North Dakota.

Speaking of North Dakota, only on the BGSs and side-street trailblazers.  Same for 29 and US 81.

If only they could decommission 52 west of Saint Paul like they should.  The ND portion could easily be renumbered (10?)

[nwi_navigator_1181]

One I am familiar with is U.S. 64 in Tennessee. TDOT recognizes State Route 15 as part of U.S. 64, and atlases show TN 15 running with U.S. 64 for almost its entire run.

You wouldn't know this, however, if you drove on U.S. 64. In the more than 100 miles I've driven on U.S. 64, not one mention of TN 15 is made. Any other - shorter - concurrencies are mentioned, but not this one.

[NE2]

If only they could decommission 52 west of Saint Paul like they should.  The ND portion could easily be renumbered (10?)

39 (using 57 as a precedent).

[bugo]

ND US 52 doesn't need to be renumbered.  As it is, US 52 is a Canada to the Atlantic Ocean highway.  Cut it back to Saint Paul and it becomes just another highway.  And it would cause tremendous confusion if it were changed.  It would also mean the removal of this sign.

[texaskdog]

ND US 52 doesn't need to be renumbered.  As it is, US 52 is a Canada to the Atlantic Ocean highway.  Cut it back to Saint Paul and it becomes just another highway.  And it would cause tremendous confusion if it were changed.  It would also mean the removal of this sign.

Maybe it has been done already