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?
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_494)
Last year's thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16852) 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."
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2016, 08:35:32 PM
Last year's thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16852) 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.
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16852) 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 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.
I-270 and I-255 around St Louis is yet another example.
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.
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.
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16852) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2016, 09:54:53 PM
Simple answer they don't connect on the west side.
Simple and untrue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/l/t1.0-9/10277068_646402135523839_2680789912661807858_n.jpg?oh=db913006e7b117873e9be00635d5bb2d&oe=585667CF)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 20, 2016, 11:49:40 AM
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.
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.
I still think mile 0 should have been at one of the junctions with Interstate 94, not at the 494 Minnesota River Bridge.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:24:00 PM
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:24:00 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2016, 06:13:47 PM
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: NE2 on August 24, 2016, 07:45:34 PM
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.
There would be no separate leg, but I-465 would still have the confusing three-way wye where it ends at itself.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
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