Minnesota Notes

[Molandfreak]

Does anyone know why the zero point for mileage on I-494 is at MN 5 near the Airport instead of at either I-35E or I-35W?

MN 5 is not an interstate, but the DOT there uses it as a start point over an actual interstate like the two I-35 branches are.

Because it's the exit for the main airport terminal.

Not sure why a junction with I-35E or I-35W would make more sense as a zero point than one of the junctions with I-94.

[roadman65]

Does anyone know why the zero point for mileage on I-494 is at MN 5 near the Airport instead of at either I-35E or I-35W?

MN 5 is not an interstate, but the DOT there uses it as a start point over an actual interstate like the two I-35 branches are.

Because it's the exit for the main airport terminal.

Not sure why a junction with I-35E or I-35W would make more sense as a zero point than one of the junctions with I-94.

I kind of figured it had something to do with that being the main airport exit and it does kind of makes sense, but usually it is other interstates ( particularly a parent) where the zero starts going Clockwise around the loop and at the south part of the loop.

Also I noticed that US 52 does not get signed along its long concurrency with I-94.  However, US 10 does.  In St. Paul where the last part of independent US 52 is, approaching I-94 & US 10, the route trailblazing disappears.  US 10 is cosigned with I-94, but US 52 is not. 

I figured that at least there it would be signed being US 10 is signed with I-94.  I can see not signing it along I-94  from Jamestown, ND to St Paul, but at least they would let the motorists know that US 52 doesn't end there, but continues with I-94 at least.

[Molandfreak]

Does anyone know why the zero point for mileage on I-494 is at MN 5 near the Airport instead of at either I-35E or I-35W?

MN 5 is not an interstate, but the DOT there uses it as a start point over an actual interstate like the two I-35 branches are.

Because it's the exit for the main airport terminal.

Not sure why a junction with I-35E or I-35W would make more sense as a zero point than one of the junctions with I-94.

I kind of figured it had something to do with that being the main airport exit and it does kind of makes sense, but usually it is other interstates ( particularly a parent) where the zero starts going Clockwise around the loop and at the south part of the loop.

Also I noticed that US 52 does not get signed along its long concurrency with I-94.  However, US 10 does.  In St. Paul where the last part of independent US 52 is, approaching I-94 & US 10, the route trailblazing disappears.  US 10 is cosigned with I-94, but US 52 is not. 

I figured that at least there it would be signed being US 10 is signed with I-94.  I can see not signing it along I-94  from Jamestown, ND to St Paul, but at least they would let the motorists know that US 52 doesn't end there, but continues with I-94 at least.

There is one sign before the junction on 52, but nothing on 94.

[Coelacanth]

Does anyone know why the zero point for mileage on I-494 is at MN 5 near the Airport instead of at either I-35E or I-35W?

MN 5 is not an interstate, but the DOT there uses it as a start point over an actual interstate like the two I-35 branches are.

Pretty sure the zero point is the river crossing, which is as near as dammit to the MN 5 interchange. Potayto, potahto.

[kphoger]

From the thread dedicated to this highway:

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.

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.

[Molandfreak]

From the thread dedicated to this highway:

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.

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.

Is the dip around Sunfish Lake a joke to MnDOT? 

[kphoger]

Not only that, but the river bridge isn't even farther south than, say, Exit 71.

[DandyDan]

Does anyone know why the zero point for mileage on I-494 is at MN 5 near the Airport instead of at either I-35E or I-35W?

MN 5 is not an interstate, but the DOT there uses it as a start point over an actual interstate like the two I-35 branches are.

I always thought it had something to do with the fact the segment of I-494 between MN-5 and South St. Paul was the last part constructed of the beltway around the Twin Cities.

[The Ghostbuster]

I always found the exit sequence of 494/694 to be unusual. I would have placed mile 0 at the 94/694/252 interchange, or at the eastern 94/494/694 interchange.

[Molandfreak]

I always found the exit sequence of 494/694 to be unusual. I would have placed mile 0 at the 94/694/252 interchange, or at the eastern 94/494/694 interchange.

That doesn't really make sense to me either. They're two separate highways, so both could have a zero point at the western I-94 junction and be treated as east-west highways their entire length, regardless of their signposted orientation.

[kphoger]

I always found the exit sequence of 494/694 to be unusual. I would have placed mile 0 at the 94/694/252 interchange, or at the eastern 94/494/694 interchange.

That doesn't really make sense to me either. They're two separate highways, so both could have a zero point at the western I-94 junction and be treated as east-west highways their entire length, regardless of their signposted orientation.

The overlap of I-694 with I-94 doesn't even need to exist in the first place.  Just eliminate that part of I-694, put the zero point at the I-94 junction in Brooklyn Center, and increase from there till the other I-94 junction in Maple Grove.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I always found the exit sequence of 494/694 to be unusual. I would have placed mile 0 at the 94/694/252 interchange, or at the eastern 94/494/694 interchange.

That doesn't really make sense to me either. They're two separate highways, so both could have a zero point at the western I-94 junction and be treated as east-west highways their entire length, regardless of their signposted orientation.

The overlap of I-694 with I-94 doesn't even need to exist in the first place.  Just eliminate that part of I-694, put the zero point at the I-94 junction in Brooklyn Center, and increase from there till the other I-94 junction in Maple Grove.

I guess I can see why the overlap exists, so people aren't on three different route numbers in the span of 8 miles. It was why they decided to do away with TH 110 and just make it all TH 62, granted you don't have tourists coming out of the airport on 494/694 in Maple Grove like you do on that 62/55 area that influenced the decision to kill 110. Sure that from a locals perspective it's all 94 between Exits 27 and 35 anyway, but point stands.

[kphoger]

I guess I can see why the overlap exists, so people aren't on three different route numbers in the span of 8 miles.

I wonder how many people even drive all eight of those miles.  My experience in that part of town is limited, though:  I think I've only driven through the Maple Grove junction a single time (well, a round trip).

[Mav94]

I guess I can see why the overlap exists, so people aren't on three different route numbers in the span of 8 miles.

I wonder how many people even drive all eight of those miles.  My experience in that part of town is limited, though:  I think I've only driven through the Maple Grove junction a single time (well, a round trip).

I haven't lived in the Cities for almost thirty years but there is plenty of traffic from the northeast metro passing through the 94/694 concurrency. Especially on summer weekends.

[Great Lakes Roads]

A visualization of the US 10 project through Wadena.

[EpicRoadways]

I know this thread has discussed the way overengineered MN-23 bypass of Paynesville before, but I was snooping around on Google Maps, and this bizarre median-seperated urban section of Lake Avenue north of town but south of the bypass caught my eye. Anyone know the story here? I find it especially odd given that most of Paynesville's (minimal) commercial development along the bypass has cropped up at the Veterans Drive interchange at the other end of town, and that section of road is nowhere near as over-engineered as Lake Ave (although it would've been constructed at the same time).

Also, I'm trying to figure out what their game plan would've been with the 23/Lake intersection if significant development had actually popped up on the north end of town... would they have added another interchange? A traffic signal? The whole setup just seems so ambitious for a town of barely 2,000 people 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I know this thread has discussed the way overengineered MN-23 bypass of Paynesville before, but I was snooping around on Google Maps, and this bizarre median-seperated urban section of Lake Avenue north of town but south of the bypass caught my eye. Anyone know the story here? I find it especially odd given that most of Paynesville's (minimal) commercial development along the bypass has cropped up at the Veterans Drive interchange at the other end of town, and that section of road is nowhere near as over-engineered as Lake Ave (although it would've been constructed at the same time).

I'm guessing they were planning for housing developments based on the stubs for unbuilt streets that jut off of this segment. The median lighting also has holders for banners to make it cutesy and welcoming.

[froggie]

I know this thread has discussed the way overengineered MN-23 bypass of Paynesville before, but I was snooping around on Google Maps, and this bizarre median-seperated urban section of Lake Avenue north of town but south of the bypass caught my eye. Anyone know the story here? I find it especially odd given that most of Paynesville's (minimal) commercial development along the bypass has cropped up at the Veterans Drive interchange at the other end of town, and that section of road is nowhere near as over-engineered as Lake Ave (although it would've been constructed at the same time).

I'm guessing they were planning for housing developments based on the stubs for unbuilt streets that jut off of this segment. The median lighting also has holders for banners to make it cutesy and welcoming.

Looked at Paynesville's land use maps.  Currently zoned agricultural.  Future use west of Lake Ave is classified as commercial, east is classified industrial.

[Molandfreak]

Overengineered how?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Overengineered how?

It probably didn't help the perception in the beginning when the Paynesville TH 23 bypass opened that it was a freeway that connected to two-lane roads on both ends, and took over 10 years to fully rectify the expressway connections. It was actually probably one of MnDOT's better jobs of forward thinking, something they don't always do well.

[Molandfreak]

Overengineered how?

It probably didn't help the perception in the beginning when the Paynesville TH 23 bypass opened that it was a freeway that conencted to two-lane roads on both ends, and took over 10 years to fully rectify the expressway connections. It was actually probably one of MnDOT's better jobs of forward thinking, something they don't always do well.

Right, like would you prefer no bypass at all and have 23 force itself through town just like most other four lane non-interstate corridors built? If anything, they should be working with Richmond and Cold Spring to limit further development along the corridor.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Overengineered how?

It probably didn't help the perception in the beginning when the Paynesville TH 23 bypass opened that it was a freeway that conencted to two-lane roads on both ends, and took over 10 years to fully rectify the expressway connections. It was actually probably one of MnDOT's better jobs of forward thinking, something they don't always do well.

Right, like would you prefer no bypass at all and have 23 force itself through town just like most other four lane non-interstate corridors built? If anything, they should be working with Richmond and Cold Spring to limit further development along the corridor.

Trying to negotiate a 4-lane through that awful pre-bypass intersection with 23 and TH 4/55 would have been horrific - and something MnDOT probably would have tried.

[midwesternroadguy]

The best justification I have for Mile 0 being at the airport is that the eastern end of the first finished segment of the beltway as 494 was from TH 5 to TH 100 in ~1960.  Thus, the mileage started there.  As construction moved westward, instead of eastward, so did the mileposts, and then northward from Eden Prairie.  The MN River bridge wouldn't open for another 27 years, so there was less incentive to milepost it eastward from the airport.

[EpicRoadways]

Overengineered how?

It probably didn't help the perception in the beginning when the Paynesville TH 23 bypass opened that it was a freeway that conencted to two-lane roads on both ends, and took over 10 years to fully rectify the expressway connections. It was actually probably one of MnDOT's better jobs of forward thinking, something they don't always do well.

Right, like would you prefer no bypass at all and have 23 force itself through town just like most other four lane non-interstate corridors built? If anything, they should be working with Richmond and Cold Spring to limit further development along the corridor.

The issue with Richmond and Cold Spring is that there was never really a realistic way to construct a bypass around the cities due to environmental limitations. You've got the chain of lakes to the south, and most of the existing development to the north. You could maybe build a northern bypass somewhere, but the added milage pretty much negates any benefit of avoiding the three stoplights and reduced speed on the existing segment.

[Molandfreak]

Speaking of Paynesville, the bootleg Business 23 is now signed with a full shield from the westbound-only exit north of town, rather than the previous "Business 23" text. There are no other signs, nor is there accompanying signage for the business loop on any of the other interchanges or intersections near town. It's not like folks will have a difficult time finding their way back to mainline 23, though.