Junction plaques and arrows

[Brian556]

You're free to post signs in any way you like in Liberty County, Florida.

Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque. Oh yeah, and overlapping signs is sloppy!!!

[vtk]

Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.

Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.

[Central Avenue]

Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.

Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

The first example that comes to mind, off the top of my head, is US 23 at OH 229. At least there it almost makes sense, since the double-arrow highlights that it's an at-grade intersection and not an interchange, but really there are clearer ways that could be indicated.

[thenetwork]

Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.

Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.

Recently??? ODOT has done that for DECADES -- maybe just not in your district.  The Cleveland area has done it that way since at least the early 70s!

[vtk]

Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.

Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.

Recently??? ODOT has done that for DECADES -- maybe just not in your district.  The Cleveland area has done it that way since at least the early 70s!

I've observed it in the last 21 months consistently from Portsmouth to Bellevue.  I don't recall noticing it in my less-frequent travels before then.

[Central Avenue]

I've noticed it around the state for years, though it's been infrequently enough that it catches my attention every time. I always just assumed it was some kind of mistake; I never considered that there may be some districts that do it consistently and other that don't.

[bassoon1986]

Not to mention that the JCT assembly should not have an arrow plaque.

Tell that to O(hio)DOT. They started doing that recently and it rubs me the wrong way.

Recently??? ODOT has done that for DECADES -- maybe just not in your district.  The Cleveland area has done it that way since at least the early 70s!

Certain areas of Louisiana do this, especially in the central part of the state. Usually with just a 90 degree left or right arrow beneath so that you know which way the junctioning highway will turn.

[NE2]

It's definitely nothing new. It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).


Simply think of it as an assembly saying that there's a junction ahead, and below are the different movements at the junction.

1948 photo:

[silverback1065]

It's definitely nothing new. It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).


Simply think of it as an assembly saying that there's a junction ahead, and below are the different movements at the junction.

1948 photo:

What does the R sign mean?

[agentsteel53]

R is right turn.  there is also L for left turn, and rarely seen LR (I've only seen Tennessee do this) for a T junction.

R and L were replaced in the 1948 MUTCD with up-and-over arrows.



before 1948, that blue elbow-arrow would have been an L.

[kphoger]

It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).

Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT.  This is how Illinois handles such intersections. 

GMSV is pretty fuzzy at this location, but see the intersection of Cambria Road and IL-149:  JCT sign (it is, trust me); arrows at the intersection.

Or here's one with some extra signage thrown into the mix, IL-153 at IL-154:  JCT sign; END sign; extra arrows in between (perhaps this would satisfy your description); arrows at the intersection.

[NE2]

It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).

Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT.  This is how Illinois handles such intersections. 

Which doesn't provide the same information as early as a JCT with a double arrow. Consider this: you have a T intersection to the right. This is signed with an advance-right arrow and then a normal right arrow. Now the route is extended to the left. The normal right arrow becomes a double arrow. But what does the advance right arrow become? If you remove the arrow and replace it with a JCT, you lose the early information about which way the route goes.

[deathtopumpkins]

It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).

Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT.  This is how Illinois handles such intersections. 

Which doesn't provide the same information as early as a JCT with a double arrow. Consider this: you have a T intersection to the right. This is signed with an advance-right arrow and then a normal right arrow. Now the route is extended to the left. The normal right arrow becomes a double arrow. But what does the advance right arrow become? If you remove the arrow and replace it with a JCT, you lose the early information about which way the route goes.

And then you have states like New Hampshire where you'll get a JUNCTION sign listing the route shields and nothing else before a major intersection, no matter which ways the roads go at it. Arrows would help tremendously, and I agree, JCT + arrow is the best way to go.

[Alps]

It's not like there's another way of saying Route x is both ways at the upcoming junction, without posting twice the signage by adding directional plates (and this assumes the route has a signed direction).

Since the presence of an "upcoming junction" sign doesn't preclude the placement of an actual route shield assembly at the intersection, it isn't really "twice the signage" to have a sign with JCT but no arrows, followed by a sign with arrows but no JCT.  This is how Illinois handles such intersections. 

Which doesn't provide the same information as early as a JCT with a double arrow. Consider this: you have a T intersection to the right. This is signed with an advance-right arrow and then a normal right arrow. Now the route is extended to the left. The normal right arrow becomes a double arrow. But what does the advance right arrow become? If you remove the arrow and replace it with a JCT, you lose the early information about which way the route goes.

And then you have states like New Hampshire where you'll get a JUNCTION sign listing the route shields and nothing else before a major intersection, no matter which ways the roads go at it.

And no matter whether you're already on both of the roads at the JUNCTION.

[vtk]

If you've looked at a map, you know which side the intersecting route is on. If you don't read maps, then you're following turn by turn directions or a satnav which tells you which way you need to turn.  Either way, the JCT assembly doesn't need to specify left or right.

If there's something about the junction which runs counter to a map reader's expectations, then a small green guide sign with "keep right" or "next left" or appropriate action message is called for, after the JCT assembly (if used) but still before the actual turn.

[NE2]

If you've looked at a map, you know which side the intersecting route is on. If you don't read maps, then you're following turn by turn directions or a satnav which tells you which way you need to turn.  Either way, the JCT assembly doesn't need to specify left or right.

What if there's an overlap on one side? Like so:

JCT JCT
99  400

99   400
<-|  WTF goes here?

99  400
<-  <->

I think it would be reasonable to combine the first and second:

JCT  JCT
99   400
<-|  <->

The JCT up top should clarify that the intersection is not immediate.

[vtk]

Why not just do this?:

JCT JCT
99  400

...

99  400
<-  <->

[kphoger]

I'm not sure an advance "JCT" sign with arrows communicates any additional meaningful information to a driver, compared to an advance sign with arrows but no "JCT" plaque.  If the presence of intermediate cross streets or whatever make it necessary to stress that the junction isn't right there, but rather up ahead, then just use elbow arrows, or put a "500 feet" or "ahead" plaque on instead.

[Android]

I've posted this picture before - but since it fits in with the current discussion I'll throw it out again.  Nebraska has some odd-looking junction signs, but I think they do a pretty good job in conveying the information.  They just look unlike what you find in other states. 

[kphoger]

Again, though...  What information does the word JUNCTION convey that the arrows alone do not?  None, really.

[kkt]

Again, though...  What information does the word JUNCTION convey that the arrows alone do not?  None, really.

Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.

WA-513 used to be routed on NE 125th St. in Seattle, to (and past) WA-522.  There are no WA-513 signs up there, but there is an out of place "Junction 522" sign on NE 125th St. where it approaches 522.

[agentsteel53]

WTF goes here?

Code Select Expand


<---+--->
    |
    |
    |


I have never seen a sign like that, but I have seen its older equivalent: "LR" used in Tennessee.

[agentsteel53]

Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.

that depends on the practices of the individual state.  Florida, for example, has both JUNCTION and arrow assembly for state/state intersections - or, in their case, former state intersections which are now county, have not been touched since the 60s, and yield all kinds of awesome old sign finds.

a lot of states appear to do things similarly.  I cannot think of a state that formally has three levels of assembly: JUNCTION-and-arrows, arrows only, and none.  I know some states seemingly randomly omit the JUNCTION a lot of the time (California), and sometimes throw in an JUNCTION-and-arrow assembly, or just an arrow assembly, for a route that was never a state highway but is deemed a significant navigational path... but for the most part, I assume a rogue JUNCTION or arrow assembly indicates a former state highway alignment.

[kphoger]

Well, junction suggests that you are on one numbered route and meeting another, while if there are just arrows you might be on an unnumbered city/county/private road and meeting a numbered route.

that depends on the practices of the individual state.  Florida, for example, has both JUNCTION and arrow assembly for state/state intersections - or, in their case, former state intersections which are now county, have not been touched since the 60s, and yield all kinds of awesome old sign finds.

a lot of states appear to do things similarly.  I cannot think of a state that formally has three levels of assembly: JUNCTION-and-arrows, arrows only, and none.  I know some states seemingly randomly omit the JUNCTION a lot of the time (California), and sometimes throw in an JUNCTION-and-arrow assembly, or just an arrow assembly, for a route that was never a state highway but is deemed a significant navigational path... but for the most part, I assume a rogue JUNCTION or arrow assembly indicates a former state highway alignment.

And, more to my point, that's useful to a driver...how, exactly?  Does already being on a state route or not have any bearing on how a driver will approach a junction or what he will do when he gets there?

[Brian556]

Quote from Agentsteel53:

www.aaroads.com/shields/img/FL/FL19790105i1.jpg
before 1948, that blue elbow-arrow would have been an L.

Before 1948, there were no Interstates. (Duh) Just thought it was odd to use an interstate sign for the example picture. Youre wording suggests that interstates existed before 1948, and that they had "R or L" beneath them