I went by this mile marker in edina and couldn't figure out why the mile number was so high. Does anyone know anything about this?
Here is a link to mile marker on google streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8882383,-93.3765729,3a,75y,127.74h,77.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swTSuSQ-pYR0ReMy6kV1jBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The short answer is that there are two MN 62s, with the one in the Twin Cities being the newer one. So to avoid internal confusion (i.e. paperwork, nothing related to the average motorist) when MN 62 in the Twin Cities was established, they started the mileposts at 100+.
Ah, that makes sense with the amount of people that use that route too. With the amount of traffic that travels on Mn 62 every day they really should add a third in each direction.
This leaves the question... why in blazes did they create a new route using a number that was already in use elsewhere? It's not like there aren't other numbers available.
To keep it consistant after the road was tranferred to the state so people would't get confused. It also follows the alignment of 62nd street for quite a ways.
Quote from: Lanturnlord on September 03, 2017, 12:51:12 AM
To keep it consistant after the road was tranferred to the state so people would't get confused. It also follows the alignment of 62nd street for quite a ways.
Which accounts for why Hennepin County numbered it 62 in the first place. IMO, if Minnesota wanted that piece of road to be MN 62, then the original MN 62, between Windom and Fulda in SW MN, should have changed to MN 162.
Quote from: DandyDan on September 03, 2017, 01:12:20 AM
Which accounts for why Hennepin County numbered it 62 in the first place. IMO, if Minnesota wanted that piece of road to be MN 62, then the original MN 62, between Windom and Fulda in SW MN, should have changed to MN 162.
I doubt there would be many people confused if they changed the number.
This happens in at least one other place in Minnesota as well: the surviving section of US 65 now carries mileposts in the 300s to prevent internal mixups with MN 65.
I guess mn 101 somewhat applies too.
On a related note, why are the mile markers on US 10 in Wisconsin so high? The total length of US 10 through Wisconsin is 294 miles, but the Oneida Street exit in metro Appleton is numbered 291, and Appleton is sure as heck not three miles from Manitowoc. Is there some epic typo someone made that just kept getting copied?
Quote from: Lanturnlord on September 03, 2017, 01:58:13 AM
I guess mn 101 somewhat applies too.
Not really. The mile markers on MN-101 go back to when it was one continuous route from Shakopee to Elk River.
Quote from: 20160805 on September 03, 2017, 08:08:07 AM
On a related note, why are the mile markers on US 10 in Wisconsin so high? The total length of US 10 through Wisconsin is 294 miles, but the Oneida Street exit in metro Appleton is numbered 291, and Appleton is sure as heck not three miles from Manitowoc. Is there some epic typo someone made that just kept getting copied?
Nobody found an answer here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18457
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 03, 2017, 10:05:11 AM
Not really. The mile markers on MN-101 go back to when it was one continuous route from Shakopee to Elk River.
I was thinking about it in the way that there is two separate roads like mn 62.
Quote from: Lanturnlord on September 03, 2017, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 03, 2017, 10:05:11 AM
Not really. The mile markers on MN-101 go back to when it was one continuous route from Shakopee to Elk River.
I was thinking about it in the way that there is two separate roads like mn 62.
But there weren't always two separate roads, and the markers haven't changed since then.
Quote from: NE2 on September 03, 2017, 05:21:41 PM
Quote from: Lanturnlord on September 03, 2017, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 03, 2017, 10:05:11 AM
Not really. The mile markers on MN-101 go back to when it was one continuous route from Shakopee to Elk River.
I was thinking about it in the way that there is two separate roads like mn 62.
But there weren't always two separate roads, and the markers haven't changed since then.
True.
It's really not confusing though so I see no need to renumber either one of them. I didn't even know there was "another" MN 62 until I was a teenager. The original 62 is an insignificant rural road.