AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: fillup420 on May 09, 2017, 07:49:22 AM

Title: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: fillup420 on May 09, 2017, 07:49:22 AM
I recently drove on US 421 north from the southern terminus at Fort Fisher, NC to my house in Boone, about 330 miles. I reset my trip counter at the BEGIN 421 sign. Once I got to the expressway west of Winston-Salem, I noticed that the mile markers and exit numbers were about 9 miles ahead of my trip counter. I figured that due to various realignments of 421, the route's mileage was altered, and there was no point in trying to fix all of the exit numbers and mile markers. Any other noticeable cases like this?
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: 1 on May 09, 2017, 08:00:00 AM
MA 110 seems to be about 1½ miles off from Wikipedia between miles 37 and 54 (no markers west of mile 37 or from 45-48, and have not been east of mile 54).

I-93 north in Massachusetts has a 42.5 mile marker with an old design between the 42.2 and 42.4 mile markers (normally the markers count in 0.2 increments, so there would not be a 42.5 marker).
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: sbeaver44 on May 09, 2017, 08:48:52 AM
Pennsylvania...

I've mentioned this before, but the US 22/322 markers start at 200.0 going W from I-81.  They alternate displaying 22 and 322 with each marker...both routes are significantly more than 200 miles to their respective state lines and the concurrency is only 60 miles or so.  You can really see this when US 322 branches off I-83 towards Hershey where the mile markers start at 221, but that's only 7-8 miles away from the "mile 200"

Additionally, US 30 going east of York has mile markers beginning at 245 at the PA 24 exit.  I think these are correct, but in Chester County they begin at 269 with the Coatesville bypass.  Google Maps shows 43 miles on US 30 between these points, so I think Chester County's are wrong by about 20.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: bzakharin on May 09, 2017, 09:26:12 AM
I-95 in northern NJ has exit numbers based on the unbuilt Somerset Freeway, but the mile markers continue the NJ Turnpike mileage.
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 09, 2017, 09:57:56 AM
On US163 in Arizona, the mile markers begin at the south end as if it's a continuation of US160 heading north.  US163 spends less than 100 miles in Arizona, but the mile markers are in the 300s and 400s!
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: Life in Paradise on May 09, 2017, 10:26:43 AM
I-69 in Indiana.  When the southern leg began to be constructed, IDOT just added 200 miles to I-69 between Indianapolis and the Michigan state line, and miraculously, Exit 1 was now 201 and so on.  It was a workable solution, but in no way will it be 200 miles from the Ohio River to the north side of Indianapolis, but since I-69 will be co-signed with I-465 around town, there won't be any other mile markers to give you a WTF moment when you get back on the freeway to Fort Wayne.
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: MikeTheActuary on May 09, 2017, 04:04:11 PM
I-40 in Tennessee, thanks to plans for I-40 through Memphis being abandoned, and some liberties taken with Mile 1 (https://goo.gl/L8DZv3) and Mile 11 (https://goo.gl/m2RJ1k)
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: SectorZ on May 09, 2017, 04:32:10 PM
MA 110 seems to be about 1½ miles off from Wikipedia between miles 37 and 54 (no markers west of mile 37 or from 45-48, and have not been east of mile 54).

I-93 north in Massachusetts has a 42.5 mile marker with an old design between the 42.2 and 42.4 mile markers (normally the markers count in 0.2 increments, so there would not be a 42.5 marker).

The state is messed up on 110 because they have it starting in the incorrect spot. Instead of at MA 12 just north of the Wachusett Reservoir, they have it starting where MA 12 and MA 140 junction in West Boylston center, about a mile south of where 110 actually starts. As soon as 12 and 140 merge together, there is a random "JCT 110" sign nowhere near an approaching intersection. 110 actually used to start in Worcester and followed 12 up to West Boylston many years ago.

Attached photo, https://www.google.com/maps/place/West+Boylston,+MA/@42.3638369,-71.7814775,3a,75y,6.52h,80.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRIiMjPMYk3QLvQl9MlOBkg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRIiMjPMYk3QLvQl9MlOBkg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.64818%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3f9c325e5caaf:0xfdde661720c95e49!8m2!3d42.3667589!4d-71.785627
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: SectorZ on May 09, 2017, 04:34:06 PM
The most intentionally incorrect ones out there are NH 101 east of I-93, where they re-start at 100 instead of the 59 and change it should be at.
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: sbeaver44 on May 09, 2017, 04:41:39 PM
On US163 in Arizona, the mile markers begin at the south end as if it's a continuation of US160 heading north.  US163 spends less than 100 miles in Arizona, but the mile markers are in the 300s and 400s!
Does AZ still do the thing where a road inherits the mile marker of the road it begins at?  Or is that just in a few cases like this and I-17?

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 09, 2017, 05:34:58 PM
In Minnesota, they're rarely, if ever readjusted after realignments or shortenings. A list of just a few examples that, and some other oddities:

Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2017, 06:00:17 PM
It also happens in this side of the pond. There's a section of A-2 East of Calatayud where there are about 8 miles signed, yet I've measured that section and somehow about 2.5 miles are "missing". But nothing tops N-330 at the Monrepos pass (between Huesca and Sabiñanigo), where kmposts jump from 598 to 602, that is 2.5 miles compressed to a few feet! Fortunately this will dissapear when A-23 is completed, but I'm awaiting to see how they will sign that since southbound will be longer than northbound.

I like to refer those as places where the space-time is distorted :sombrero:.
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 09, 2017, 08:22:50 PM
On US163 in Arizona, the mile markers begin at the south end as if it's a continuation of US160 heading north.  US163 spends less than 100 miles in Arizona, but the mile markers are in the 300s and 400s!
Does AZ still do the thing where a road inherits the mile marker of the road it begins at?  Or is that just in a few cases like this and I-17?

Nexus 6P

It seems to be fairly common across Arizona.  US89, US160, and I-17 follow that same alternative rule.
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: noelbotevera on May 09, 2017, 09:15:16 PM
On US163 in Arizona, the mile markers begin at the south end as if it's a continuation of US160 heading north.  US163 spends less than 100 miles in Arizona, but the mile markers are in the 300s and 400s!
Does AZ still do the thing where a road inherits the mile marker of the road it begins at?  Or is that just in a few cases like this and I-17?

Nexus 6P
It seems to be fairly common across Arizona.  US89, US160, and I-17 follow that same alternative rule.
I think the theory behind those is that they reflect former routes. I-17 took over US 89, and from the point where I-17 starts, it was 194 miles from the southern terminus at Nogales (though US 89 may have taken a different route - I get about 178-179 miles via the Goog). US 89's milemarkers reflects the couple hundred miles it used to travel before its truncation to Flagstaff, but I'm unsure of how US 160 and US 163 have those milemarkers. US 160 was realigned in 1970, the same year US 163 was created, so draw your own conclusions from that.
Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on May 10, 2017, 08:45:54 AM
In Minnesota, they're rarely, if ever readjusted after realignments or shortenings. A list of just a few examples that, and some other oddities:

    Quote
    • MN-74 used to continue west from its current terminus at US-52; as a result, the mile markers start in the 20s instead of at zero.

    Other very noticeable examples of this are MN 50 and MN 44. I actually had asked about this in the last couple years why the mileposts are not recalibrated. froggie indicated it was simply so the DOT doesn't have to waste time/money updating all the changes that would ensue which would include both the physical signs as well as the route logs involved. MN 42 was extended by three miles from US 14 to I-90 in the 2000s, but I don't think you see a milepost between US 14 and I-90.

    Quote
    • Strangely, this isn't the case with MN/US-61; they both start at zero. This might be the only case of recalibration I can think of, since MN-61 used to be part of US-61.

    Interestingly, the first milepost you see on the route is milepost 5. MN 61 was truncated by two miles in 1997 to eliminate a section that ran southwest of I-35, but there are no Mileposts 3 or 4 that should still be part of the existing section.

    Quote
    • Minnesota has two MN-62s—the original one in the southwest, running from Fulda to Windom, has the normal zero-calibrated markers; the later Twin Cities MN-62 has mile markers with 100 added to them. However, the western terminus of MN-62 doesn't start at 100; it starts at mile 103. Mile marker 100 was calibrated to be the junction of what is now Hennepin CR-62 and 101. There must've been a plan at one point to extend the MN-62 designation west of I-494, but MN-101 was turned back to the county and that never materialized.

    The plan to do this was NIMBYed. I think the plan was on the books well into the 1990s. I'm not sure though if the grade separation that was built at Eden Prairie Road was done as part of that project or not.[/list]
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2017, 08:56:49 AM
    All of I-70 east of I-55 in IL is totally incorrect!  I-70 continues I-270's mileposts and exit numbers east of its split from I-55 all the way into Indiana. :bigass:
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: US71 on May 10, 2017, 09:04:33 AM
    There's a 419.99 in Colorado
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: 1 on May 10, 2017, 09:05:46 AM
    There's a 419.99 in Colorado

    It's not incorrect. The marker is actually shifted 0.01 mile.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 10, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
    MN 42 was extended by three miles from US 14 to I-90 in the 2000s, but I don't think you see a milepost between US 14 and I-90.

    That's really strange. I can understand not changing existing mileposts, but surely it isn't nearly the same amount of hassle to install two or three more.

    Edit: Oh, wait, that was an extension south. Never mind, putting in new markers would require moving all the rest (unless they used negative numbers? :D) It's funny to look at that in the log, like for example the junction with US-14 is listed at reference point 000+03.379. :crazy:

    Quote
    Interestingly, the first milepost you see on the route is milepost 5. MN 61 was truncated by two miles in 1997 to eliminate a section that ran southwest of I-35, but there are no Mileposts 3 or 4 that should still be part of the existing section.

    Wonder if those other two mile markers just vanished due to construction or the general strangeness that causes them to disappear often on urban surface roads. Like, for example, about half of the mile markers for both US-6 and US-69 here in Des Moines are missing. That just might be because the Iowa DOT is super slow and/or lazy about replacements, though.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Eth on May 10, 2017, 12:36:51 PM
    There's a milepost 5 posted on northbound Peachtree Street in midtown Atlanta (photo from September 2015, but it's still there as of yesterday):

    (http://ten93.com/2015/peachtree_mile5.jpg)

    Why is that remarkable? Because this portion of Peachtree Street hasn't been a state highway since at least 1939, if ever (GDOT maps prior to October '39 didn't have an Atlanta inset). So...what is it mile 5 *of*?
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: dvferyance on May 10, 2017, 02:07:24 PM
    I-41 in Wisconsin they still reflect US 41. They are about 40 miles off. US 10 for whatever reason is also off by about 40 miles. I-39 is off but only by 4 miles no big deal there.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: dvferyance on May 10, 2017, 02:09:29 PM
    I-40 in Tennessee, thanks to plans for I-40 through Memphis being abandoned, and some liberties taken with Mile 1 (https://goo.gl/L8DZv3) and Mile 11 (https://goo.gl/m2RJ1k)
    Same goes for I-65 north of Nashville since the reroute but it's only slightly off there.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2017, 02:56:18 PM
    There's a 419.99 in Colorado

    It's not incorrect. The marker is actually shifted 0.01 mile.

    It's not shifted at all.  It's on the same post MM 420 was on.  The 'shifting' would've been 6 inches.  Milemarkers are allowed to be off about 50 feet when necessary, per the MUTCD.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 10, 2017, 03:51:02 PM
    .01 mi x 5280 ft/mi = 52 ft 9.6 in. :colorful:
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Darkchylde on May 10, 2017, 06:17:46 PM
    The original section of I-69 in Indiana, intentionally shifted up a flat 200 miles instead of being shifted up by the proper mileage that the new sections (and routing along 465) will actually add.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Bickendan on May 11, 2017, 02:52:46 AM
    Oregon's highways...
    Notable one: I-84.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: US71 on May 11, 2017, 08:32:10 AM
    There is supposedly an I-65 marker near Branson, MO
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Brandon on May 11, 2017, 10:15:41 AM
    I-41 in Wisconsin they still reflect US 41. They are about 40 miles off. US 10 for whatever reason is also off by about 40 miles. I-39 is off but only by 4 miles no big deal there.

    I-39 uses US-51's mileposting, even in the stretch that used to be Wis-78.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Brandon on May 11, 2017, 10:16:35 AM
    The original section of I-69 in Indiana, intentionally shifted up a flat 200 miles instead of being shifted up by the proper mileage that the new sections (and routing along 465) will actually add.

    I don't think InDOT knew how much they would add when they upped the original section by 200.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: paulthemapguy on May 11, 2017, 12:05:53 PM
    The original section of I-69 in Indiana, intentionally shifted up a flat 200 miles instead of being shifted up by the proper mileage that the new sections (and routing along 465) will actually add.

    I don't think InDOT knew how much they would add when they upped the original section by 200.

    Do you think they'll change them again once the highway runs border-to-border (i.e. from KY to MI)?

    There's a 419.99 in Colorado

    I had the pleasure of driving past the 419.9 mile marker along US191 in northeast Arizona.  I did notice that they placed it just before the 420th mile (i.e. the space between 419 and 419.9 was indeed smaller than the interval between 419.9 and 421).  It wasn't incorrect, so I didn't initially say anything about it here.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: kphoger on May 11, 2017, 01:24:52 PM
    There is supposedly an I-65 marker near Branson, MO

    Any more info?  This is certainly something I'd notice, but I've hardly ever been south of 76 and have only been south of Hollister one time.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: ekt8750 on May 11, 2017, 02:05:18 PM
    Pennsylvania...

    I've mentioned this before, but the US 22/322 markers start at 200.0 going W from I-81.  They alternate displaying 22 and 322 with each marker...both routes are significantly more than 200 miles to their respective state lines and the concurrency is only 60 miles or so.  You can really see this when US 322 branches off I-83 towards Hershey where the mile markers start at 221, but that's only 7-8 miles away from the "mile 200"

    Additionally, US 30 going east of York has mile markers beginning at 245 at the PA 24 exit.  I think these are correct, but in Chester County they begin at 269 with the Coatesville bypass.  Google Maps shows 43 miles on US 30 between these points, so I think Chester County's are wrong by about 20.

    Nexus 6P

    It really does't help that PA doesn't place true mileposts on signed routes that aren't on freeways.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: PColumbus73 on May 11, 2017, 02:51:19 PM
    SC 31 in Horry County, SC has backwards mile markers. Mile 0 is at the north end of the freeway.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Bickendan on May 11, 2017, 02:57:07 PM
    SC 31 in Horry County, SC has backwards mile markers. Mile 0 is at the north end of the freeway.
    Most Oregon north-south highways do this. Is SC 31 one of the lone instances of this in South Carolina?
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: PColumbus73 on May 11, 2017, 03:25:05 PM
    SC 31 in Horry County, SC has backwards mile markers. Mile 0 is at the north end of the freeway.
    Most Oregon north-south highways do this. Is SC 31 one of the lone instances of this in South Carolina?

    I looked since you asked. SC 30 (signed as an east-west route), in Charleston County, has 'backwards' mile markers as well. BUT, SC 30 was intended to be part of I-526.

    SC 22 has correct mile markers.

    SC 31's mile markers might have been placed to avoid having to resign them when the highway was extended south, and since the north end is about 2-3 miles from the NC state line, I think it would make the most sense from a cost-saving standpoint.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Bickendan on May 11, 2017, 04:39:57 PM
    That sounds like a good exception proving the rule scenario.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: epzik8 on May 11, 2017, 11:04:38 PM
    I-83 through Maryland is a couple miles off; this might be due to its cancellation through Little Italy-Fells Point in Baltimore, which would have taken it out to I-95.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: dvferyance on May 12, 2017, 09:00:18 PM
    I-41 in Wisconsin they still reflect US 41. They are about 40 miles off. US 10 for whatever reason is also off by about 40 miles. I-39 is off but only by 4 miles no big deal there.

    I-39 uses US-51's mileposting, even in the stretch that used to be Wis-78.
    I know that but it isn't off by much so I am ok with it. I-41's on the other hand should be changed.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: machias on May 13, 2017, 10:28:10 PM
    NY 5 Expressway in the Syracuse area starts with MP 0 at the intersection with NY 174. It should be MP 215.5.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: Darkchylde on May 15, 2017, 02:51:22 PM
    The original section of I-69 in Indiana, intentionally shifted up a flat 200 miles instead of being shifted up by the proper mileage that the new sections (and routing along 465) will actually add.

    I don't think InDOT knew how much they would add when they upped the original section by 200.

    Do you think they'll change them again once the highway runs border-to-border (i.e. from KY to MI)?
    I don't think they will, though I'm no expert on INDOT practices. By doing that, though, it seems to signal that they're not going to change I-465's mileposts to reflect I-69's mileage. I-465's mileposting takes precedence right now over I-74's in that existing concurrency. The average motorist won't have any idea just how far it actually travels along 465 from the SW end to the NE end.

    It's simply an easier shift for those advertising along the original route on billboards, or those giving directions. Most only have to add a 2 in front, those from Fort Wayne north only have to change a leading 1 to a 3.
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: PHLBOS on May 15, 2017, 04:31:01 PM
    One in southeastern PA:

    PA 309's mile markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0836736,-75.1621313,3a,75y,349.41h,78.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4__FylNSiVY1sOiueowmWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4__FylNSiVY1sOiueowmWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D34.158775%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) near Philly start at the beginning of the expressway portion (just south of the PA 152 interchange); roughly 2 miles north of its actual southern terminus w/PA 611 at the Philly line.

    A couple in northeastern MA:

    US 1 north of MA 60 still has occasional old mile markers erected that predate its 1989-90 rerouting onto I-93 from Boston south.
    Old MM 48 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.436059,-71.0203048,3a,75y,322.96h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!
    1svvLLJ153XlLIGNTx4W60cQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
    More recent MM 53.8 just north of the old MM 48 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4364068,-71.0208395,3a,75y,314.36h,96.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHQdA6QXPuYlN0CQPG_VnUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

    MA 128 east of I-95 still has some mid-80s vintage, structure-mounted mile markers that reflect its pre-1988 intended south/western terminus at the US 1 interchange while the newer mainline mile markers reflect its official southern terminus at the I-95/93 interchange in Canton.
    MM 3.71 at MA 114 overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Peabody,+MA/@42.5401357,-70.9379658,3a,75y,232.7h,75.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr5sCzG_K1d2E6Ji3g8Xujg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3125bb7f609f1:0xe0c86ab48e23439f!8m2!3d42.5278731!4d-70.9286609!6m1!1e1)
    MM 39.8 just east of the MA 114 overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5404507,-70.937548,3a,75y,232.89h,83.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLpb59t3a4qZr9FTFL9FZhg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)  (if 128 was fully truncated at I-95 in Peabody, this would be either MM 2.7 or 2.8)
    Title: Re: "Incorrect" Mile Markers
    Post by: SectorZ on May 15, 2017, 08:41:40 PM
    https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4025435,-71.670155,3a,90y,249.36h,82.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9GQew45vZAVtNUF9bMy21Q!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

    Old mile marker on MA 62 in Clinton MA. This one was accurate when 62 took this routing, but at some point was routed to a more southerly routing.