It's about time renaming 110 to 62, making it one continuous route:
http://www.startribune.com/hwy-110-in-mendota-heights-will-be-renamed-to-hwy-62-next-summer/452538123/
Quote from: Zaphod on October 23, 2017, 02:46:05 PM
It's about time renaming 110 to 62, making it one continuous route:
http://www.startribune.com/hwy-110-in-mendota-heights-will-be-renamed-to-hwy-62-next-summer/452538123/
Wow. I didn't see that coming. I also question whether it's necessary. Are that many people going straight through from the west metro to I-494 on the east side along 62/55/110? When I was growing up in Edina we never took 62/55/110 to get to the east metro.
Does anyone know of any other reason for this change other than reducing confusion?
110 is code for crack.
One of the city mayors involved (who sounds like he is not thrilled with the change) stated one reason was to advertise 62 as a "bypass" of 494, though anyone who's familiar with the traffic on both routes knows it won't help. :spin:
110 as currently built also isn't a full freeway anyway.
I know someone will bring up that MnDOT missed the chance to get rid of the duplicate MN 62, which the reason 62 was picked to be extended according to the DOT was because of 110's number coming from its history as a fragment from the old MN 100 beltway.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 24, 2017, 12:39:36 AM
110 as currently built also isn't a full freeway anyway.
I don't think mndot has any desire to upgrade it either
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 23, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: Zaphod on October 23, 2017, 02:46:05 PM
It's about time renaming 110 to 62, making it one continuous route:
http://www.startribune.com/hwy-110-in-mendota-heights-will-be-renamed-to-hwy-62-next-summer/452538123/
Wow. I didn't see that coming. I also question whether it's necessary. Are that many people going straight through from the west metro to I-494 on the east side along 62/55/110? When I was growing up in Edina we never took 62/55/110 to get to the east metro.
I suppose opinion varies on the topic, but it makes more sense to me to number a long stretch of uninterrupted pavement the same number, than have the number change over and over again (presumably to follow the important route of cars instead). I think if you "turn off" a roadway, that road should not feature the same number as the road you are on. There are many obvious exceptions to this rule, but in the case 62/55/110, I don't see why the number has to change three times on what is basically one straight uninterrupted section of road.
Well that's way out of left field. Never had expected MnDOT to actually do something about this. I have thought that they should be the same route, given their very close termini, but I would NOT have gone with 62, for obvious reasons. :banghead:
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 23, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: Zaphod on October 23, 2017, 02:46:05 PM
It's about time renaming 110 to 62, making it one continuous route:
http://www.startribune.com/hwy-110-in-mendota-heights-will-be-renamed-to-hwy-62-next-summer/452538123/
Wow. I didn't see that coming. I also question whether it's necessary. Are that many people going straight through from the west metro to I-494 on the east side along 62/55/110? When I was growing up in Edina we never took 62/55/110 to get to the east metro.
When I was a kid in Cottage Grove, I remember 110/55/62 as part of the route to my uncle's old apartment in Plymouth. But that was before 494 was built east of the airport, and before it was MN 62.
Reducing confusion seems to be a valid rationale for changing a number. Why would there have to be another reason?
Is there an article or news release or a source for this?
Someone in the comments claims to be the one who emailed MnDOT suggesting the change. Several other article comments, and to a degree Jake's comment here, miss that A) these were really built as two separate roads, and B) this requires a concurrency with MN 55, which was the original highway through that corridor all along.
That said, giving both routes the same number makes sense, though I'd have preferred to see a US 212 extension.
Saw that after I posted here (had read this thread first). Also have to ask the mods if it would make sense to merge this thread with the same conversation going on in the Minnesota Notes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2268658#msg2268658) thread. Or pull those comments into this thread.
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2017, 08:09:26 AM
Someone in the comments claims to be the one who emailed MnDOT suggesting the change. ... That said, giving both routes the same number makes sense, though I'd have preferred to see a US 212 extension.
Maybe if enough of us email MnDOT we can make
that change happen. :bigass:
US 212>MN 110>MN 62, if I had to rank the possible numbers.
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2017, 08:11:16 AM
Saw that after I posted here (had read this thread first). Also have to ask the mods if it would make sense to merge this thread with the same conversation going on in the Minnesota Notes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2268658#msg2268658) thread. Or pull those comments into this thread.
Done.
Seems to me that hell has finally frozen over, because a seemingly fictional idea has been implemented.
I think 62 was the best choice. 212 has now ended at 62/169 for 35 years and 62 has for better or worse become an integral part of the local fabric since then.
Before then, really...
Just because something's been done one way for a long period doesn't mean it should always stay that way.
I wonder if Mndot will update their 494/62 study page to reflect this change...
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i494and62study/
Quote from: Lanturnlord on October 25, 2017, 06:21:52 PM
I wonder if Mndot will update their 494/62 study page to reflect this change...
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i494and62study/
Why? I don't think the study area is changing, and the change won't be signed until next year.
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2017, 07:54:13 AM
Is there an article or news release or a source for this?
MnDOT has provided a page about the renumbering: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy110renamingtohwy62/
Evidently this renumbering is a pain for people living or having a business on Highway 110, which is not a freeway.
If your home or business is currently addressed Hwy 110 (i.e. 123 Hwy 110), yes you will have to change your address.
The city you reside in will notify you when to begin using your new address and it is recommended that you wait until that time before you change anything. You will want to notify your power company and utility providers, insurance company, Driver and Vehicle Services, your cell phone carrier, your cable carrier, your bank(s), voter registration, schools attended by anyone in your household, newspapers and/or magazines and other subscriber services.
Quote from: Chris on October 28, 2017, 05:02:10 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2017, 07:54:13 AM
Is there an article or news release or a source for this?
MnDOT has provided a page about the renumbering: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/hwy110renamingtohwy62/
Evidently this renumbering is a pain for people living or having a business on Highway 110, which is not a freeway.
If your home or business is currently addressed Hwy 110 (i.e. 123 Hwy 110), yes you will have to change your address.
The city you reside in will notify you when to begin using your new address and it is recommended that you wait until that time before you change anything. You will want to notify your power company and utility providers, insurance company, Driver and Vehicle Services, your cell phone carrier, your cable carrier, your bank(s), voter registration, schools attended by anyone in your household, newspapers and/or magazines and other subscriber services.
While I was growing up in Green Bay, Willow Street became University Avenue and Highland became Lombardi Avenue. Part of Main Street was moved onto Cedar Street and the old section became Bodart Way. All within ten years and all were major business thoroughfares. People griped for a couple years but went on with their lives. 40-50 years later, it's no big deal and merely an historic interest item.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 25, 2017, 10:20:16 AM
I think 62 was the best choice. 212 has now ended at 62/169 for 35 years and 62 has for better or worse become an integral part of the local fabric since then.
I hadn't heard about this until yesterday when my wife mentioned it. I said I'd have to check with the road geeks on AAroads to see what they said. I agree that 212 makes the most sense numerically, but except for those of us who have lived here forever and still call it Crosstown, everyone knows it as 62. That would be a tough one to change over at this point.
Quote from: discochris on November 06, 2017, 01:37:05 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 25, 2017, 10:20:16 AM
I think 62 was the best choice. 212 has now ended at 62/169 for 35 years and 62 has for better or worse become an integral part of the local fabric since then.
I hadn't heard about this until yesterday when my wife mentioned it. I said I'd have to check with the road geeks on AAroads to see what they said. I agree that 212 makes the most sense numerically, but except for those of us who have lived here forever and still call it Crosstown, everyone knows it as 62. That would be a tough one to change over at this point.
See, I just don't buy the "everyone knows it as X" argument. MN-110 has been around longer than MN-62, and even then, it used to be a section of MN-100. People adapt.
And that's valid, but I think this is where we need to step back and remember that 99% of motorists just see numbers on a sign, don't know and don't care about the history, and don't sit here and think about these things like we do. They could entirely renumber the Twin Cities freeway system tomorrow and it wouldn't really do much for us (other than creating some insane discussions) but it would be a pretty major mind fuck for most people. 62 was probably picked for being more significant and locally utilized than 110 and I doubt eliminating 62 was ever considered.
Basically my argument is that eliminating 62 would not have been in the best interest of the local motoring public. I get that people dislike the duplication or that it makes US 212 less relevant by quietly ending in Edina, I do. But I think it was the right call.
I agree that linking the two routes is a good idea, and I do agree that going with MN-62 was probably the decision that would be least confusing for the general public. However, I just don't think, IMO, it was the best option available–if they're going to make a change in the first place, why not go bold? ;-)
Quote from: MNHighwayManSee, I just don't buy the "everyone knows it as X" argument. MN-110 has been around longer than MN-62, and even then, it used to be a section of MN-100.
I buy that, but in fairness I grew up a block-and-a-half off the Crosstown. While this has changed some in the past 20 years, most locals still know it as either "62" or "the Crosstown".
As a state highway, yes MN 110 has been around longer than MN 62. But as a numbered route, 62 has been 62 since several years before former 100 became 110. Based on historic MnDOT state highway maps, MN 110 came about ca. 1964. By then, most of the Crosstown freeway (numbered then-CSAH 62 since planning began in the late 1950s) had already been completed from just east of US 169 to 46th Ave (just west of MN 55/Hiawatha). The earliest reference I've found to CSAH 62 in county maps is 1956.
I wish they would rename one of the MN-62's to a different number, like MN-82. There are two state highways in MN with that number, which is egregious imo.
Hardly the only state that has duplicate route numbers.
As for renumbering one of them, renumbering the Fulda-Windom 62 makes more sense on a number of levels. Lower population/less usage = less confusion. It could be numbered MN 17 (also an unused number), which would also tie into the County Road 17 that is the roadway designation east of the US 71/MN 60 intersection in Windom.
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2018, 10:34:19 AM
Hardly the only state that has duplicate route numbers.
As for renumbering one of them, renumbering the Fulda-Windom 62 makes more sense on a number of levels. Lower population/less usage = less confusion. It could be numbered MN 17 (also an unused number), which would also tie into the County Road 17 that is the roadway designation east of the US 71/MN 60 intersection in Windom.
If we're going to renumber the original MN-62, I'm a fan of making it MN-31. Half the original number. :)
Quote from: froggie on February 04, 2018, 10:34:19 AM
Hardly the only state that has duplicate route numbers.
As for renumbering one of them, renumbering the Fulda-Windom 62 makes more sense on a number of levels. Lower population/less usage = less confusion. It could be numbered MN 17 (also an unused number), which would also tie into the County Road 17 that is the roadway designation east of the US 71/MN 60 intersection in Windom.
Yeah, and all the other states that do it gross me out too. I agree with renumbering the one that affects the smaller amount of people, though.
The 2019 Rand McNally has been updated to reflect the upcoming change, which I'm surprised they implemented it into their atlas this quickly.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 02, 2018, 09:00:47 PM
I wish they would rename one of the MN-62's to a different number, like MN-82. There are two state highways in MN with that number, which is egregious imo.
Being that way back when, they renumbered MN 35, 90 and 94 as 135, 190 and 194, I could see them decide to change SW MN's MN 62 to MN 162.
^ I see 17 as being more likely than 162. 17 is an unused number, the roadway is adjacent to Constitutional Route 17 (though most non-road people would understand the signficance of that), and it's CSAH 17 east of 60/71.
Funny this topic gets revived today, because of what I was up to today: preserving history. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/x4tztR4.jpg)
Did you get a shot from farther back with more roadway and context?
(https://i.imgur.com/Ws6S8o7.jpg)
Edit: I realize that's not that much further back, but to give it some more context, it's just a little bit outside the right edge of the frame of this picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/YlCYLPn.jpg)
^ Much better. Besides offering context, it better adheres to the photography rule of thirds.
The second one is the way I take most of my pictures, actually–the first pic I posted was much more an exception rather than the rule. I just thought the close-up was nice and didn't actually think anyone was going to ask for the more "official," rule-of-thirds picture I took first. :-D
There are many (including/in particular on this forum) who like big close-up photos of signs. Personally, I like context.....that and my wife is a former news camerawoman and so context and the "rule of thirds" factors big in our household.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4764/26491782478_29c66fd62f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GmZiYj)signs (https://flic.kr/p/GmZiYj) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
I've seen you post that picture before, and there's two things about it that really stand out to me:
1. There's just route numbers in a square with a outline border, like modern Massachusetts or Maine markers. Either those are a group of one-off shields, or there was a brief period where the state name wasn't included on the Minnesota state highway marker.
2. The fact that the rightmost shield is cut off is mildly infuriating. Is it 13, 100, or 110? The 1 in the picture looks like it could be far enough left to still fit two zeros (or a 1 and a 0) to the right of it. It's hard to tell from the rest of the picture exactly when and where that is. Furthermore, just exactly what was the photographer pointing at? Unless it's a cropped photo, I have no idea.
This was a "guess the location" trivia question, hence the deliberate cropping.
I saw another photo that has signs like these on MN 60 that are more squared-off without the state name so this was not a one-off situation. Since this one was 1972 it was into the blue-squared era, so obviously not all were replaced at once.
Quote from: Mdcastle on May 27, 2018, 08:37:26 PM
This was a "guess the location" trivia question, hence the deliberate cropping.
I saw another photo that has signs like these on MN 60 that are more squared-off without the state name so this was not a one-off situation. Since this one was 1972 it was into the blue-squared era, so obviously not all were replaced at once.
Care sharing what the answer is, then? ;-)
Also, and I know this is starting to veer off-topic, but I wouldn't mind seeing that MN-60 photo. It seems like the period before the contemporary Minnesota highway marker was one with less standardization, so to speak. (And don't get me started about the shape of Minnesota (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20019.0) with the current design. It seems that there is no standard, and fabricators either have to figure it out on their own, or just guess.)
Most likely, that's a 110 shield that's cut off on the far right. Here's my rationale:
- The arrow for that shield is clearly pointing to the right, but MN 13 had continued straight through this intersection since the 1930s.
- FIL thinks that's a '65 Impala about to go through the intersection.
- According to MnDOT project logs and archived aerial imagery, more modern traffic signals and a widening of the MN 13 intersection approaches (to include the turn lane seen in the photo) were done in 1966.
- The former MN 100 in Dakota County was renumbered as MN 110 by 1965...the first year 110 appears on the Twin Cities inset of the state highway map.
Since Monte mentioned the "blue square", it's worth noting that MnDOT did not finalize the design specs for it until 1973 (yes, including the shape of the state....blame sign contractors if it's off). And it probably did take a few years before all the state highway shields were replaced.
I'd be really interested to see a design document that lays out the supposed shape of the state outline. The only thing the MnDOT Standard Signs Manual specifies about it is its height (5" tall on a 24" shield) and its vertical spacing from both the blue field and the top edge of the sign (½ inch in both cases.)
I spent most of a Saturday saving pictures I found interesting from the online Minnesota Highways Department newsletters. I'll keep that request in mind but unfortunately that SD card disappeared so until it turns up or I get the motivation to look for it.