News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-694, I-494

Started by ethanhopkin14, August 15, 2016, 05:51:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ethanhopkin14

Maybe this has been talked about, but I have always wondered why the beltway for the Twin Cities has two route numbers.  Does anyone know why the west and south side is I-494 and the rest is I-694, and they share mile posting?


ET21

Probably for ease of knowing which section is where on the Beltway.

Also note here: "The 43-mile (69 km) road is coupled with Interstate 694 (which circles the northern edge of the Twin Cities metro area) at each end, and composes more than half of the major beltway of the region. I-694 / I-494 also act as loop routes for Interstate 35E and Interstate 35W"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_494
The local weatherman, trust me I can be 99.9% right!
"Show where you're going, without forgetting where you're from"

Clinched:
IL: I-88, I-180, I-190, I-290, I-294, I-355, IL-390
IN: I-80, I-94
SD: I-190
WI: I-90, I-94
MI: I-94, I-196
MN: I-90

froggie

Last year's thread on the subject.

Here's one of my comments from that thread, which basically sums up the answer:

"694 is the core bypass, while 494 is a southern beltline.  The two really do serve different functions/travelsheds, and so that's why they have separate numbers."

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Last year's thread on the subject.

Here's one of my comments from that thread, which basically sums up the answer:

"694 is the core bypass, while 494 is a southern beltline.  The two really do serve different functions/travelsheds, and so that's why they have separate numbers."

I personally think that rationale is weak.  There are tons and tons of towns all over this country that have a loop and one leg of the loop is a better bypass than the other leg, yet the whole thing has one number. You can't tell me the west side of Interstate 275 in Cincinnati is not long and out of the way compared to the east side for through I-75 drivers.  What about down in San Antonio, if you are traveling through on Interstate 10, everyone knows taking the north bypass on I-410 is faster than going all the way around on the south side of I-410, yet it retains one route number.

If they truly need to be treated as separate routes, why do they share mileposts?  It seems to me someone messed something up in the original panning of the system.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2016, 10:04:16 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Last year's thread on the subject.

Here's one of my comments from that thread, which basically sums up the answer:

"694 is the core bypass, while 494 is a southern beltline.  The two really do serve different functions/travelsheds, and so that's why they have separate numbers."

I personally think that rationale is weak.  There are tons and tons of towns all over this country that have a loop and one leg of the loop is a better bypass than the other leg, yet the whole thing has one number. You can't tell me the west side of Interstate 275 in Cincinnati is not long and out of the way compared to the east side for through I-75 drivers.  What about down in San Antonio, if you are traveling through on Interstate 10, everyone knows taking the north bypass on I-410 is faster than going all the way around on the south side of I-410, yet it retains one route number.

If they truly need to be treated as separate routes, why do they share mileposts?  It seems to me someone messed something up in the original panning of the system.


So...why does it matter?  I hope your answer isn't simply "because every other city does it that way."

TheStranger

I can think of an obvious similar example to this:

I-280 and I-680 in the Bay Area (which switches numbers at US 101 in San Jose and does not have one set of mileposts) - in that case, that creates a situation where going "north" or "south" along the road can clearly be understood as either the west half of the beltway (280 from SJ to SF) or the east half (680 from SJ to Cordelia via Concord) with no confusion.
Chris Sampang

Brandon

I-270 and I-255 around St Louis is yet another example.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

texaskdog

I lived off 694 for 37 years.   It was built in pieces...694 was done before 494.  they both had pieces arc of each side of 94.  Since 94 was not completed until 1983, 694 duplexes with 94 on tne NW end of town.  I'm not saying it's right, just why it is the way it is.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: Brandon on August 16, 2016, 01:14:35 PM
I-270 and I-255 around St Louis is yet another example.

Yeah, but that was a matter of Illinois and Missouri not agreeing on a route number.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 16, 2016, 01:02:08 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2016, 10:04:16 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Last year's thread on the subject.

Here's one of my comments from that thread, which basically sums up the answer:

"694 is the core bypass, while 494 is a southern beltline.  The two really do serve different functions/travelsheds, and so that's why they have separate numbers."

I personally think that rationale is weak.  There are tons and tons of towns all over this country that have a loop and one leg of the loop is a better bypass than the other leg, yet the whole thing has one number. You can't tell me the west side of Interstate 275 in Cincinnati is not long and out of the way compared to the east side for through I-75 drivers.  What about down in San Antonio, if you are traveling through on Interstate 10, everyone knows taking the north bypass on I-410 is faster than going all the way around on the south side of I-410, yet it retains one route number.

If they truly need to be treated as separate routes, why do they share mileposts?  It seems to me someone messed something up in the original panning of the system.


So...why does it matter?  I hope your answer isn't simply "because every other city does it that way."

I don't have an answer.  I was hoping there was an interesting story, not just one is a faster bypass so it has a different number, because I hate to break it to you, but you're not the only metro area with that case.  I was hoping there was a story about the route if it existed prior to the Interstate Highway System, like maybe it was two different routes then, and to keep thing the same for prosperities sake, the Interstate Highway System kept that up.  But from what I am reading, the routes were brand new routes in the 1960s.

Brandon

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2016, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 16, 2016, 01:14:35 PM
I-270 and I-255 around St Louis is yet another example.

Yeah, but that was a matter of Illinois and Missouri not agreeing on a route number.

No, that's not accurate at all.  The loop was going to be three numbers (I-270, I-244, and I-255).  Later it was changed to one number (I-270).  Then it was split into the current two numbers (I-270 and I-255).  Both states agreed on the route numbers at all times.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Sykotyk

But, the St. Louis comparison doesn't work as all as it forms a crossed ribbon on the northeast corner.

I-255 ends at I-270, while I-270 continues east from that point to end at I-70 and I-55's major interchange. I-70 even continues the mileage from I-270 instead of I-55/I-70.

The Ghostbuster

I think 494 and 694 should have had their own mileposts and exit sequences. Otherwise, the two Interstates should have had one number for the whole beltway.

TheStranger

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 16, 2016, 02:14:47 PM
  I was hoping there was a story about the route if it existed prior to the Interstate Highway System, like maybe it was two different routes then, and to keep thing the same for prosperities sake, the Interstate Highway System kept that up.  But from what I am reading, the routes were brand new routes in the 1960s.

In line with that:

There was a previous surface street belt route around the Twin Cities, the single-numbered Highway 100, of which only a north-south segment remains (and is now full freeway).  One portion of it, an east-west segment south of St. Paul, became Highway 110.

Chris Sampang

froggie

MN 120 and what used to be MN 96 west of White Bear Lake were also parts of that pre-Interstate MN 100 beltline.  Furthermore, much of I-494 through Bloomington was built right on top of what used to be a MN 5/MN 100 concurrency.

roadman65

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2016, 03:49:01 PM
I think 494 and 694 should have had their own mileposts and exit sequences. Otherwise, the two Interstates should have had one number for the whole beltway.
How about I-94 using their mileage and exit numbers for its short overlap with it?  That is more than odd considering that the main 2 digit is not a guest on another freeway.  If it had happened to have changed freeways at both ends with the two 3 digits keeping their freeway exclusively then it would not be so odd, but that is not the case here is it?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

dvferyance

Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2016, 09:54:53 PM
Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.
Simple and untrue.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

froggie

Quote from: roadman65How about I-94 using their mileage and exit numbers for its short overlap with it?  That is more than odd considering that the main 2 digit is not a guest on another freeway.  If it had happened to have changed freeways at both ends with the two 3 digits keeping their freeway exclusively then it would not be so odd, but that is not the case here is it?

Technically, yes it is, at least partially.  At the east end of the concurrency, 694 is considered the "through route" (especially eastbound).  At the west end, where I-494 junctions, the interchange design is such that NO route is a through route.

Henry

The Capital Beltway around Washington was another example when I-95 replaced I-495 on the eastern half, but then they revived the I-495 designation there, so that point is now moot.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

dvferyance

Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 18, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2016, 09:54:53 PM
Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.
Simple and untrue.
Just look at a map and see. I-94 makes a turn to the north just after downtown and reaches I-694 which western end point is there. I-94 turns west and then meets with I-494 in a few miles. Yes it is true they don't touch on the west side.

TheHighwayMan3561

#21
Quote from: dvferyance on August 19, 2016, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 18, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2016, 09:54:53 PM
Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.
Simple and untrue.
Just look at a map and see. I-94 makes a turn to the north just after downtown and reaches I-694 which western end point is there. I-94 turns west and then meets with I-494 in a few miles. Yes it is true they don't touch on the west side.

Well...694 does not end there, and I don't know of any maps that do show that error. Anyway, here's proof.

self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

amroad17

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 don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

dvferyance

Quote from: amroad17 on August 20, 2016, 05:59:31 AM
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.

Bickendan

Quote from: dvferyance on August 19, 2016, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 18, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2016, 09:54:53 PM
Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.
Simple and untrue.
Just look at a map and see. I-94 makes a turn to the north just after downtown and reaches I-694 which western end point is there. I-94 turns west and then meets with I-494 in a few miles. Yes it is true they don't touch on the west side.
No map I've seen has shown I-94 flying solo on the portion of the beltway it runs on. They've always shown it cosigned with I-694, and often times even show US 52, which is not signed in the field. I-94 and 694 are in fact cosigned in the field, so yes, I-494 and I-694 do meet up at both ends of the beltway.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.