I-694, I-494

[texaskdog]

no, it's because 694 was built before 94 was built north from Minneapolis and they figured it was less confusing to not have the road switch numbers halfway through, and they never decommissioned it.

[ethanhopkin14]

We could just enjoy and accept the oddity.  When driving for a trucking company and making a few deliveries in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, I found nothing wrong with having two separate numbers and using one set of milemarkers.  Actually, it does make it easier to navigate there.  Kansas and Missouri should have done this with I-435, the way it is routed around Kansas City.

I agree this is such a trivial argument anyways.

I agree.  The point of my original post was not to say "IT NEEDS TO CHANGE TO ONE ROUTE NUMBER" but mainly to see if anyone out there knows why it is like it is.  I don't know if all road nerds are like me, but one of the things I love the most about highways is it is a history lesson.  I love the history of highways, but I love the history of highway anomalies more.

Who doesn't love:

1.) Interstate 17 starting at roughly milepost 194 instead of 0 because of a previous route and old Arizona milepost practice
2.) Interstate 19 having metric mileposts
3.) The eastern Interstate 76 having descending mileposts in New Jersey traveling west to east.
4.) And, God forbid, Breezewood

The reason I love these anomalies is the history lesson behind it.  I just was wanting to see if it is a holdover from an old Minnesota highway practice, as I stated before.  I don't want the route to change because then it becomes just another interstate highway. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I still think mile 0 should have been at one of the junctions with Interstate 94, not at the 494 Minnesota River Bridge.

[dvferyance]

I still think mile 0 should have been at one of the junctions with Interstate 94, not at the 494 Minnesota River Bridge.

MM 0 on I-270 around Columbus is at the southern junction of I-71 instead of either junction of I-70 so it's not completely unusual.

[invincor]

I still think mile 0 should have been at one of the junctions with Interstate 94, not at the 494 Minnesota River Bridge.

By putting it there, you get the lowest-number exits all near the airport, which simplifies things for out-of-town travelers.  Maybe that was a piece of the reasoning?

[froggie]

I can't find it now, but I recall FHWA guidance that recommended full beltway mileposting should have Mile 0 at or near the southernmost point of the beltway.  That is likely the reason why MP 0 is at the Minnesota River bridge.

[Brandon]

I can't find it now, but I recall FHWA guidance that recommended full beltway mileposting should have Mile 0 at or near the southernmost point of the beltway.  That is likely the reason why MP 0 is at the Minnesota River bridge.

I've seen that one before, and I believe the FHWA's reasoning to be a crock of shit.  Take I-465, Indianapolis, for example.  The only reason we need I-865 is because mile 0 at the south end instead of the more logical northwest corner at I-65.

[froggie]

The only reason we need I-865 is because mile 0 at the south end instead of the more logical northwest corner at I-65.

I'd make the counter-argument that I-865 is needed because of the 3-way wye, not because of the mileposts.

[Brandon]

The only reason we need I-865 is because mile 0 at the south end instead of the more logical northwest corner at I-65.

I'd make the counter-argument that I-865 is needed because of the 3-way wye, not because of the mileposts.

Had I-465 started with 0 at I-65 up there, it would merely end at itself instead of formerly having a 3-way wye.

[NE2]

It would still have a three-way wye. It's just that mileage-wise, the south leg rather than the west leg would be separate.

[Brandon]

It would still have a three-way wye. It's just that mileage-wise, the south leg rather than the west leg would be separate.

WTF!?!  No, the numbers would then count upwards, clockwise from I-65 in Zionsville, around to what would then become Exit 2.  There would be no separate legs then.

[NE2]

There would be no separate leg, but I-465 would still have the confusing three-way wye where it ends at itself.

[Bickendan]

I can't find it now, but I recall FHWA guidance that recommended full beltway mileposting should have Mile 0 at or near the southernmost point of the beltway.  That is likely the reason why MP 0 is at the Minnesota River bridge.

That would make sense for a single, odd numbered beltway, certainly. But that argument doesn't work so well with a dual numbered or single, even numbered beltways, in my opinion (I'd argue single, even numbered should be zeroed at their western point). In I-494/694's case, I'd say both zeros should be at the northwest corner if 694 were never truncated to the 94/252 junction (otherwise that should be 694's 0).
Also, MNDOT should get over its love of the cloverleaf, but that's neither here nor there, lol