Just to clear things up from the start: before you get up in a bundle that this is fictional highway content, I'm actually planning to start meeting with city councils, writing letters to MN/DOT and local congressmen about this.
Many road enthusiasts have dreamed of an Interstate on the U.S. 52 corridor between St. Paul and Rochester. However, so far we've had seldom more than just talk on the subject.
Upon completion of the freeway, I feel that Rochester is not only nationally, but internationally important enough to justify replacing U.S. 52 with an Interstate number. In fact, it kind of surprises me that none of the cities of the corridor have really dealt with this topic yet. But through powerpoint presentations to city councils, I believe I can get more than enough support from area communities.
With Cannon Falls businesses in an uproar, (http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/cannon-falls-council-mndot-to-discuss-u-s-access/article_8cd5ff33-e1f9-50ff-830f-b3d61eb84218.html#.VNmSzLzzLZQ.facebook) it could be the toughest town to get on board with this. But if I play the cards right (suggest a narrow diamond interchange at the planned overpass to the north, give the "Interstates lead to greater economic development" speech), I believe I'll be able to win over some residents there.
I-37 is only a preliminary number, as I believe the communities would initially find a mainline more attractive to get behind. Plus, it opens the door for a possible Avenue of the Saints reroute through Rochester. Other numbers I would suggest are I-294 and I-290 (both corresponding state highways have been turned back).
Any suggestions of where I should start, or presentation tips? I think I'll make a separate powerpoint for each city council, though most of the content will be recycled. I'll make all the google docs public and post the links when I'm almost done.
Before you go talking serious about an Interstate...you need a freeway**. The counties and local communities were part of the process that created a vision for a freeway about a decade ago, but that freeway needs to happen before you can even think about asking MnDOT to petition for an Interstate. First thing you'll need to do is get Outstate residents on board with a gas tax increase or some other major sort of revenue increase....there's no way that MnDOT will be able to perform this upgrade without additional revenue.
Second thing is remind them of that vision and put feelers out for continued support of that vision.
** = or convince Franken or Klobuchar to put a rider into the eventual Federal highway bill officially designating it as a future Interstate, as some other states have done. However, MnDOT will still need additional revenue, and Federal earmarks are now off the table (as they have been for a few years).
FTR: I agree with the concept of an Interstate along this corridor....my preference for number would be 290 or 294, leaning towards the former.
I agree. If it's just a St. Paul/Rochester route, an odd 3di of I-90 (i.e. I-190, I-390, etc.) would probably make more sense.
I-35EE.
Quote from: froggie on February 10, 2015, 07:15:37 AM
Before you go talking serious about an Interstate...you need a freeway**
Oh really, I totally didn't know that. </sarcasm>
It's a
planned freeway. So it can be a
planned Interstate. Right now, it doesn't really make sense to designate part of the corridor as an Interstate (until MN/DOT gets funding to redesign the interchange at I-90 at least). No gas tax needed, future corridor signs can go up for now. Does everything have to be 100% literal and unabridged for it to make sense?
Given precedent elsewhere: unless there's a funded plan, "Future Interstate" designation is something that would require Federal legislation...hence why I used the asterisks and noted that earlier.
If it were up to me, I'd probably make it an I-x90 spur, with I-194 or I-594 as good alternatives (I-394 is already taken).
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2015, 01:24:32 PM
If it were up to me, I'd probably make it an I-x90 spur, with I-194 or I-594 as good alternatives (I-394 is already taken).
194 is taken by a state highway in the Duluth area, so if it gets an x94 it would probably be 594.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2015, 01:24:32 PM
If it were up to me, I'd probably make it an I-x90 spur, with I-194 or I-594 as good alternatives (I-394 is already taken).
194 is taken by a state highway in the Duluth area, so if it gets an x94 it would probably be 594.
There are 2 MN-62s, there can be an I-194 and MN-194 hundreds of miles apart
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2015, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2015, 01:24:32 PM
If it were up to me, I'd probably make it an I-x90 spur, with I-194 or I-594 as good alternatives (I-394 is already taken).
194 is taken by a state highway in the Duluth area, so if it gets an x94 it would probably be 594.
There are 2 MN-62s, there can be an I-194 and MN-194 hundreds of miles apart
I know that, but there was a reason for that duplication. Same with the MN/US duplicates. MN 194 has no connection with a Rochester-St. Paul road.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2015, 03:33:45 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2015, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 11, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 11, 2015, 01:24:32 PM
If it were up to me, I'd probably make it an I-x90 spur, with I-194 or I-594 as good alternatives (I-394 is already taken).
194 is taken by a state highway in the Duluth area, so if it gets an x94 it would probably be 594.
There are 2 MN-62s, there can be an I-194 and MN-194 hundreds of miles apart
I know that, but there was a reason for that duplication. Same with the MN/US duplicates. MN 194 has no connection with a Rochester-St. Paul road.
Well MN 194 can changed names again then :) It really should be a new US 53 anyway. Current 53 is just a street with a lot of lights
State Highway 194 was authorized in 1920 and was originally numbered State Highway 69 from 1934 to 1935. The original route was between its intersection with U.S. Highway 2 in Solway Township (near Highway 33) to its intersection with U.S. Highway 53 and Lindahl Road in Hermantown (then Herman Township).
In 1935, this route was renumbered State Highway 94 when U.S. Highway 69 was extended into Minnesota from Iowa near Albert Lea.
The route was paved by 1940.
The route was renumbered again (as 194) circa 1959 to avoid duplication with Interstate Highway 94 that was being built in Minnesota during the early 1960s.
The section of present day State Highway 194 between U.S. 53 in Hermantown and downtown Duluth was authorized in 1933. The original alignment of this section was from U.S. 53 (Miller Trunk Highway) down Central Entrance to 6th Avenue East and then to Second and Third Streets in downtown Duluth (where it intersected then-Highway 61 as Second / Third Streets downtown). In 1991, the alignment of State Highway 194 on the Duluth hillside was changed from 6th Avenue East to Mesaba Avenue, southbound to I-35. The section of Highway 61 that was signed on Second and Third Streets in downtown Duluth was eliminated at this time, due to the new I-35 extension around downtown Duluth completed in 1992.
MnDOT tends to not like duplicating route numbers on state highways. The reason for two 62's is because the Metro Area one was long known with the same route number when it was a Hennepin County road, and MnDOT deemed that there would be a low potential for confusion between the two routes.
One could argue there are also two highway 65's (one US, one state), but the state one is simply an extension of the US route.
In the past, I have suggested to MnDOT's District 3 that the long-planned (but long-delayed) I-94/US 10 Connector near Clear Lake should be given the 594 route number.
My preference for I-290 along the US 52 corridor is twofold. First, it emphasizes that Rochester is connected to I-90. Second, it reinforces the route as an alternative for Twin Cities drivers to get to/from I-90 (though it's 27 miles longer than taking I-94 from St. Paul to Tomah).
MN 200 should take over MN 194, save it for when the MN 15 freeway is completed through St. Cloud. I-294 can be the planned MN 24 bridge and U.S. 10 to 194.
It was ridiculous to not consider 294 and 494 for the twin cities beltway over a little mile-long highway in Willmar.
No odd 3dI for this one! I-290, I-37 or bust!
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
My preference for I-290 along the US 52 corridor is twofold. First, it emphasizes that Rochester is connected to I-90. Second, it reinforces the route as an alternative for Twin Cities drivers to get to/from I-90 (though it's 27 miles longer than taking I-94 from St. Paul to Tomah).
It's also lighter traffic and thus more reliable speed-wise, though you do have to go through Rochester.
Quote from: FightingIrish on February 10, 2015, 08:34:25 AM
I agree. If it's just a St. Paul/Rochester route, an odd 3di of I-90 (i.e. I-190, I-390, etc.) would probably make more sense.
I agree. Aren't even 3-dis supposed to indicate that they return to the original 2-di route (as a bypass or through-city route)? Since this alignment is only a spur from I-90, it should be odd. I know that there are tons of exceptions, but I don't think that makes them correct.
On a ROC 52 promotional brochure published in the mid-2000s, it claimed that the corridor from I-90 to I-494 already had 39 miles as limited access of the corridor's ~80 miles. The only way that claim could be made would be to count any section mile without an intersection or driveway as limited access. It was pushing the limits of reasonableness IMO. Since then, more miles have had access controlled, and that number is now more realistic (Cannon Falls bypass, County 9 interchange, Hampton/County 47). That means that the corridor mileage is approximately half freeway.
QuoteAren't even 3-dis supposed to indicate that they return to the original 2-di route (as a bypass or through-city route)?
Per FHWA guidance, this is not a requirement. Some states have interpreted it that way, but it's not necessary. An even I-x90 would be allowable (and preferred IMO).
QuoteOn a ROC 52 promotional brochure published in the mid-2000s, it claimed that the corridor from I-90 to I-494 already had 39 miles as limited access of the corridor's ~80 miles. The only way that claim could be made would be to count any section mile without an intersection or driveway as limited access. It was pushing the limits of reasonableness IMO. Since then, more miles have had access controlled, and that number is now more realistic (Cannon Falls bypass, County 9 interchange, Hampton/County 47). That means that the corridor mileage is approximately half freeway.
Assuming they were including the completion of ROC52 (which effectively extended the Rochester freeway segment from 65th St NW to 90th St NW), there would've been ~17 miles in Rochester, about a mile in Pine Island, 2.5 miles in Zumbrota, another 2.5 miles in Cannon Falls (between the north signal and the rail crossing), just over a mile in Hampton, about 1.5 miles near the Koch Refinery, and about 5.5 miles in Inver Grove Heights, for a total of about 30 miles at the time. Since then, there's been 2 more miles added in Coates, another mile in Hampton, another 1.5 miles in Cannon Falls, and the segment through Oronoco (about 5.5 miles), so we're right around 40 miles now.
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
low potential for confusion
low potential for confusion
low potential for confusion
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
MnDOT tends to not like duplicating route numbers on state highways. The reason for two 62's is because the Metro Area one was long known with the same route number when it was a Hennepin County road, and MnDOT deemed that there would be a low potential for confusion between the two routes.
One could argue there are also two highway 65's (one US, one state), but the state one is simply an extension of the US route.
In the past, I have suggested to MnDOT's District 3 that the long-planned (but long-delayed) I-94/US 10 Connector near Clear Lake should be given the 594 route number.
My preference for I-290 along the US 52 corridor is twofold. First, it emphasizes that Rochester is connected to I-90. Second, it reinforces the route as an alternative for Twin Cities drivers to get to/from I-90 (though it's 27 miles longer than taking I-94 from St. Paul to Tomah).
long delayed should be the mantra of any Minnesota highway project. I remember 610 started in the mid 80s and it's still not close to completion, and it's not that long of a road.
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
MnDOT tends to not like duplicating route numbers on state highways. The reason for two 62's is because the Metro Area one was long known with the same route number when it was a Hennepin County road, and MnDOT deemed that there would be a low potential for confusion between the two routes.
O(R)DOT's similar. The reason OR 82 and OR 205 still exist is that they're far away from their respective Interstates, though both could be renumbered without too much issue.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 12, 2015, 05:34:11 PM
MN 200 should take over MN 194, save it for when the MN 15 freeway is completed through St. Cloud. I-294 can be the planned MN 24 bridge and U.S. 10 to 194.
I-194 could exist right now if MNDOT wanted it. MN 15 is interstate standard already between I-94 and MN 23. Plans to convert MN 15 to a freeway north through St Cloud to US 10 are still actively in the works.
I-294 could be considered for the finished 610 freeway in Brooklyn Park to I-35W. The final section between CR 81 and I-94 in Maple Grove has started construction.
As for I-37, I am partial to an I-74 extension from the Quad Cities to St Paul perhaps along US 61 to Lacrosse and then multiplex I-90 to US 52 .....?
Though I-37 has merit because then I-35W becomes I-35, I-35E becomes I-37 to Forest Lake, and I-35E between Lakeville and I-94/37 would be I-235 or something and Minnesota gets rid of the E and W interstates .....
It was ridiculous to not consider 294 and 494 for the twin cities beltway over a little mile-long highway in Willmar.
No odd 3dI for this one! I-290, I-37 or bust!
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
My preference for I-290 along the US 52 corridor is twofold. First, it emphasizes that Rochester is connected to I-90. Second, it reinforces the route as an alternative for Twin Cities drivers to get to/from I-90 (though it's 27 miles longer than taking I-94 from St. Paul to Tomah).
It's also lighter traffic and thus more reliable speed-wise, though you do have to go through Rochester.
So will this eventually connect to I-37 in Texas?
Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2015, 10:27:27 AM
So will this eventually connect to I-37 in Texas?
I wouldn't count on it! And besides, the existing I-37 joins I-35 in San Antonio, so a wide arc will have to be created just to make that connection possible.
How about Interstate 55 from Saint Louis to Chicago becomes an extension of I-44 and I-55 takes over the routing to Saint Paul? Traffic going from New Orleans to Chicago wouldn't go through Saint Louis anyway.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
How about Interstate 55 from Saint Louis to Chicago becomes an extension of I-44 and I-55 takes over the routing to Saint Paul? Traffic going from New Orleans to Chicago wouldn't go through Saint Louis anyway.
That sounds similar to the routing of the planned US-55.
Anyways, I wish you, Molandfreak, the best of luck in this.
And besides, I don't think Chicago would be too happy about losing its I-x5 route in favor of an extended I-44.
However, I hope your proposal gets some consideration at least.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 09, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
How about Interstate 55 from Saint Louis to Chicago becomes an extension of I-44 and I-55 takes over the routing to Saint Paul? Traffic going from New Orleans to Chicago wouldn't go through Saint Louis anyway.
That sounds similar to the routing of the planned US-55.
Knew I couldn't put anything past y'all :)
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2015, 10:10:09 AM
And besides, I don't think Chicago would be too happy about losing its I-x5 route in favor of an extended I-44.
However, I hope your proposal gets some consideration at least.
Do you really think anyone gets outraged about this anymore??
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2015, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2015, 10:10:09 AM
And besides, I don't think Chicago would be too happy about losing its I-x5 route in favor of an extended I-44.
However, I hope your proposal gets some consideration at least.
Do you really think anyone gets outraged about this anymore??
Ask IDOT the last time WisDOT even so much as suggested that I-55 be extended north over what is now I-41.
Quote from: Brandon on June 10, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2015, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2015, 10:10:09 AM
And besides, I don't think Chicago would be too happy about losing its I-x5 route in favor of an extended I-44.
However, I hope your proposal gets some consideration at least.
Do you really think anyone gets outraged about this anymore??
Ask IDOT the last time WisDOT even so much as suggested that I-55 be extended north over what is now I-41.
Okay, so why would Illinois care that I-55 gets LONGER? that should be I-55 for sure
Okay 94 ends at Tomah, 55 goes to Saint Paul, 44 follows along 55 and then 94 through Michigan, 65 extends over I-41, all fixed!
Quote from: NE2 on February 10, 2015, 12:44:18 PM
I-35EE.
I-35EES or I-35EN would be preferred if we're going that route, though the latter would require several other renumberings.
What is the likelihood that US 52 will become Interstate 37? In the Fictional Highways World, I'd put Interstate 37 along US 53 between Eau Claire and Superior.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2015, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 10, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2015, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2015, 10:10:09 AM
And besides, I don't think Chicago would be too happy about losing its I-x5 route in favor of an extended I-44.
However, I hope your proposal gets some consideration at least.
Do you really think anyone gets outraged about this anymore??
Ask IDOT the last time WisDOT even so much as suggested that I-55 be extended north over what is now I-41.
Okay, so why would Illinois care that I-55 gets LONGER? that should be I-55 for sure
IDOT is lazy, IMHO, and does not play well with others.
Being serious for a moment, if you're serious:
1. As much as possible, have a plan. Froggie's "make it a freeway" comment is kind of flippant, but it's accurate. Develop a plan to make it a freeway. Develop a proposed time frame. Come up with a list of agencies that you'd need to coordinate with, possible funding sources, and a specific, targeted idea. Good ideas are easy to come up with - actually implementing them is the challenge, and people get sick of hearing about good ideas that aren't ever actually going to happen. Even if the plan is a little bit of a stretch, if it's at least somewhat realistic there's a chance people will buy into it.
2. Come up with the actual benefits as much as possible. Why do these communities care if the highway is a freeway? Why do they care if it has an interstate designation? Let's say you're using economic development as your argument - are there studies that you can pull that show that interstate designation definitively == more money for a region? What are some other case studies in the area? I-41 comes to mind as a possible recent example that could be heavily drawn from.
3. I'd engage community organizations prior to going to city councils, to be honest. Once you've identified why the highway should be an interstate and why people should care, contact the people who would stand to benefit. If you're using economic development, get in touch with local chambers of commerce. These are the people that actually have power in a community, as opposed to some random person who popped in out of nowhere. Build relationships with these folks, and use them as your "ins" to talk to government. Sell them on the idea. This will help to establish your own credibility - city councils don't often have time for a powerpoint presentation from some dude who doesn't even live in their community. Without the credibility to get posted as an agenda item, you'll probably be limited to the random public comment period, which is usually limited to a couple minutes per person and certainly not enough time to do a Powerpoint. Having a specific, detailed, implementable plan with the documentation to back it up will also help you get on the actual agenda.
4. It may be helpful to develop a website and a coalition of sorts - get on the ground floor with an "I-37 Coalition" or something that reaches out to key stakeholders in a community. This will also help to give you credibility. You really have two challenges:
A) Why should anybody listen to what you have to say?
B) Why is this proposal necessary?
Your goal should be to address and fully resolve those two components before doing anything else.
While that may sound discouraging, don't be discouraged. It's amazing how few people give a shit about the world, and enthusiasm toward communities and economic development is nearly always welcomed, from what I've noticed. If you have a good idea and you're willing to put the work into sell it (and you're nice about it, willing to accept input, and not demanding), it's definitely possible to do so.
That was not my intention, and I apologize that I didn't word it better. My point was mainly two-part. That unless you get the MN Congressional delegation to slip a rider into a bill, the freeway conversion would need to take place first before you could get serious about an Interstate designation...there are ways to add Interstates without Congressional action, but FHWA all but requires that the road in question is Interstate-quality first before they'd approve it.
The second part of my point was more financial in nature. In short, there's no way that MnDOT will be able to perform this upgrade without additional revenue. The events of this past Legislative session, unfortunatley, reinforced that.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 10, 2015, 03:52:02 PM
What is the likelihood that US 52 will become Interstate 37? In the Fictional Highways World, I'd put Interstate 37 along US 53 between Eau Claire and Superior.
I am pretty sure that US-53 will never be upgraded to a full freeway along that stretch. I don't think there are any interchanges between Rice Lake and the south side of Superior, and my recollection is that the expressway is plenty sufficient for the traffic.
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 10, 2015, 03:44:15 AM
With Cannon Falls businesses in an uproar
Sounds like they need the Texas style frontage road. Of course Minnesota would have no idea how to make one work.
As much as I drive US 52 between Rochester and the Cities, I'm not sure it warrants a 2-di designation by itself. At that latitude, I had always thought that the US 53 corridor from Duluth (or even I Falls) MN to Eau Claire, WI makes a better 2-di corridor (much of it is freeway already in WI) since it's longer and traverses two states.
However, if the Avenue of the Saint corridor were rerouted through Rochester, then that might make a better 2di from St. Louis to St. Paul.
If we're talking about an interstate designation only between Rochester and the Cities then an odd 3di from I-90 makes sense (I-190, 390, etc.) Reserve any 3dis from an I-94 root for possible spurs from the Twin Cities and the rest of MN and adjacent WI.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 11, 2015, 11:08:56 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 10, 2015, 03:52:02 PM
What is the likelihood that US 52 will become Interstate 37? In the Fictional Highways World, I'd put Interstate 37 along US 53 between Eau Claire and Superior.
I am pretty sure that US-53 will never be upgraded to a full freeway along that stretch. I don't think there are any interchanges between Rice Lake and the south side of Superior, and my recollection is that the expressway is plenty sufficient for the traffic.
One exists at WIS-70. A "partial" one exists at US-2's east split and partial here means that WB US-2 traffic seeking SB-US-53 access must use a u-turn slip to get onto it via the median.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 11, 2015, 11:32:57 AM
As much as I drive US 52 between Rochester and the Cities, I'm not sure it warrants a 2-di designation by itself. At that latitude, I had always thought that the US 53 corridor from Duluth (or even I Falls) MN to Eau Claire, WI makes a better 2-di corridor (much of it is freeway already in WI) since it's longer and traverses two states.
However, if the Avenue of the Saint corridor were rerouted through Rochester, then that might make a better 2di from St. Louis to St. Paul.
If we're talking about an interstate designation only between Rochester and the Cities then an odd 3di from I-90 makes sense (I-190, 390, etc.) Reserve any 3dis from an I-94 root for possible spurs from the Twin Cities and the rest of MN and adjacent WI.
Can't you read? Stop it.
QuoteAlso, please spare the comments about the number; this thread isn't about that. It's preliminary, to get the support of Rochester specifically.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 11, 2015, 05:47:37 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on June 11, 2015, 11:32:57 AM
As much as I drive US 52 between Rochester and the Cities, I'm not sure it warrants a 2-di designation by itself. At that latitude, I had always thought that the US 53 corridor from Duluth (or even I Falls) MN to Eau Claire, WI makes a better 2-di corridor (much of it is freeway already in WI) since it's longer and traverses two states.
However, if the Avenue of the Saint corridor were rerouted through Rochester, then that might make a better 2di from St. Louis to St. Paul.
If we're talking about an interstate designation only between Rochester and the Cities then an odd 3di from I-90 makes sense (I-190, 390, etc.) Reserve any 3dis from an I-94 root for possible spurs from the Twin Cities and the rest of MN and adjacent WI.
Can't you read? Stop it.
QuoteAlso, please spare the comments about the number; this thread isn't about that. It's preliminary, to get the support of Rochester specifically.
??? Maybe you should calm down. Many people were talking about the number. No reason to be rude.
It's just kind of frustrating because it happened immediately after I asked.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
low potential for confusion
low potential for confusion
low potential for confusion
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
Texas 70 crosses US 70. Georgia 27 crosses US 27. Montana 287 ends at US 287, Arkansas 530 ends at I-530. US 69 intersects I-69. US 74 duplexes with the illegitimate I-74. US 41 and the silly I-41 duplex.
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 13, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/18741235345_9b1bd473a3_o.jpg)
Quote from: bugo on June 12, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 13, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/18741235345_9b1bd473a3_o.jpg)
More proof that you can't cure stupid.
Quote from: skluth on June 14, 2015, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 12, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 13, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/18741235345_9b1bd473a3_o.jpg)
More proof that you can't cure stupid.
It has nothing to do with being stupid. This exit is 15 miles from the TX-121 exit that takes you to the airport. If you are not familiar with the area and/or how Texas numbers its highways, I can't blame someone for being confused.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 14, 2015, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: skluth on June 14, 2015, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 12, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 13, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/18741235345_9b1bd473a3_o.jpg)
More proof that you can't cure stupid.
-1
Quote
It has nothing to do with being stupid. This exit is 15 miles from the TX-121 exit that takes you to the airport. If you are not familiar with the area and/or how Texas numbers its highways, I can't blame someone for being confused.
+1
maybe a renumbering would make it easier?
What if instead of calling it I-37. We mark it right now as I-190. As it stands right now it has enough traffic and local importance as a spur to Rochester that it could be approved right now and then as soon as more freeway miles are added just count up the miles and add it to the freeway.
Quote from: Trademark on January 04, 2021, 12:34:18 PM
What if instead of calling it I-37. We mark it right now as I-190. As it stands right now it has enough traffic and local importance as a spur to Rochester that it could be approved right now and then as soon as more freeway miles are added just count up the miles and add it to the freeway.
That worked for Indiana. We had I-164 established, and now it has been incorporated into I-69 in Southern Indiana. If there is no real need for a 2-d there, then I-190 would still be in existence.
I always figured I-37 should be the eventual interstate numbering of the Avenue of the Saints, multiplexing with I-35 from Clear Lake, IA to Burnsville, MN, then taking over I-35W's entire length.
Quote from: skluth on June 14, 2015, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 12, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 13, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/18741235345_9b1bd473a3_o.jpg)
More proof that you can't cure stupid.
(https://i.imgur.com/pIRwFMq.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ni0wGol.jpg)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:03 AM
Quote from: skluth on June 14, 2015, 09:22:08 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 12, 2015, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 13, 2015, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 13, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
If they really believed this there could be a lot of duplication. In Texas DFW has Texas 360 and Austin has loop 360. I don't think any of us have made any mistakes.
TxDOT had to replace a bunch of signs on southbound US 75 in Grayson County because people were mixing up FM 121 with SH 121 and ending up in Gunter or Tioga instead of at the airport. The F.M. 121 shield on the exit signs was replaced with "FM 121" text, and a "DFW TRAFFIC DO NOT EXIT" supplement at the bottom, and some of the distance signs have "SH 121 to DFW" listed as a destination.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/505/18741235345_9b1bd473a3_o.jpg)
More proof that you can't cure stupid.
(https://i.imgur.com/pIRwFMq.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ni0wGol.jpg)
Think the I-68 one is also part of MD's thing with encouraging drivers to shunpike the PA turnpike. Like I've seen an I-68 sign with "Alternative route to Ohio and points west" on I-270 before, which is saying something.
Because this freeway will pass near MSP airport, I think it should be called I-990, because at one time there was a type of airplane used by American Airlines, Swissair, and other airlines called the "Convair 990".
I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times, but has there ever been discussion of an interstate route from Minneapolis to St. Louis? You could break off I-37 at Owatonna, follow around the US routes through Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City - ultimately ending up in St. Louis.
Quote from: gbgoose on January 05, 2021, 09:53:25 AM
I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times, but has there ever been discussion of an interstate route from Minneapolis to St. Louis? You could break off I-37 at Owatonna, follow around the US routes through Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City - ultimately ending up in St. Louis.
I feel like if they would do an interstate it would be along avenue of the saints. And honestly as someone who takes that road many times its never busy enough to need an interstate upgrade. Theyve been doing a lot of upgrades over the years getting rid of all the lights.
I could see them continuing to add interchanges at a slow pace as needed though.
Quote from: Trademark on January 04, 2021, 12:34:18 PM
What if instead of calling it I-37. We mark it right now as I-190. As it stands right now it has enough traffic and local importance as a spur to Rochester that it could be approved right now and then as soon as more freeway miles are added just count up the miles and add it to the freeway.
Wouldn't the existing I-90/US 52 interchange also have to be rewired before that can happen?
Mike
Even if the US 52 corridor doesn't get an Interstate designation (not that I think it needs one), I think all of the exits on US 52 from Interstate 90 in Rochester to Interstate 94 in Saint Paul should have exit numbers. Also, in my opinion, the existing Interstate 37 in Texas will probably be the only corridor that will have the 37 designation, although Interstate 155 in Illinois could have gotten the Interstate 37 designation, as that was the designation Illinois wanted for the corridor. However, that number was turned down in favor of the 155 designation.
We didn't get it on 155 but we did on 39 when it ended at 80 so I think There is a good case. Also 63 would be a fairly easy upgrade
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 03:26:33 PM
Even if the US 52 corridor doesn't get an Interstate designation (not that I think it needs one), I think all of the exits on US 52 from Interstate 90 in Rochester to Interstate 94 in Saint Paul should have exit numbers. Also, in my opinion, the existing Interstate 37 in Texas will probably be the only corridor that will have the 37 designation, although Interstate 155 in Illinois could have gotten the Interstate 37 designation, as that was the designation Illinois wanted for the corridor. However, that number was turned down in favor of the 155 designation.
The I-155 corridor is way too short for a two digit.
What I have here is purely fictional territory, but I had this on a map of mine
- AotS from St. Louis to Waterloo, US 63 from Waterloo to Rochester and US 52 from Rochester to St. Paul becomes an I-55 reroute.
- Current I-55 in Illinois, along with I-44 from Tulsa to St. Louis becomes part of an I-45 extension, so IDOT can shut up about not getting an x5. This would line up with the messed up Wisconsin N-S grid as well.
Illinois was really into an Interstate for every freeway then.
Yep Sky I think it's pretty fictional but interesting I would extend 43 down to Monmouth to overlap the 110 ....
90 / 52 is scheduled for 2024
^ "Scheduled" (pending COVID fallout, last I knew). As for WHAT MnDOT has planned...that is another question. I have yet to find a website or news article showing any sort of detail.
Does the interchange really need that much in the way of reconfiguring beyond cleaning up the left turns a bit? The loops are pretty much tumbleweed territory because US 63 handles those movements.
Does anyone know which handles more traffic 52 to 90 or 52 to 90?
Quote from: Trademark on January 06, 2021, 09:10:36 PM
Does anyone know which handles more traffic 52 to 90 or 52 to 90?
They both handle exactly the same amount of traffic. (Read your post again.)
^ No they don't. 63/90 handles more traffic overall. 63 is busier on both sides of 90 than 52.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 10:32:23 AM
^ No they don't. 63/90 handles more traffic overall. 63 is busier on both sides of 90 than 52.
It was between 52 to 90 and 52 to 90. He didn't ask about 63 at all.
It was clear to me that he meant 63 for one of them. You took it way too literally.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2021, 12:42:14 PM
It was clear to me that he meant 63 for one of them. You took it way too literally.
I actually thought he meant 52 to 90 or 90 to 52 (i.e. reverse commute).
Is this an actual proposal? If not, shouldn't this be in the fictional thread?
Quote from: I-39 on January 07, 2021, 01:14:59 PM
Is this an actual proposal? If not, shouldn't this be in the fictional thread?
The first sentence of the OP explains why this isn't fictional, but he is no longer on the forum.
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 12, 2015, 05:34:11 PM
MN 200 should take over MN 194, save it for when the MN 15 freeway is completed through St. Cloud. I-294 can be the planned MN 24 bridge and U.S. 10 to 194.
It was ridiculous to not consider 294 and 494 for the twin cities beltway over a little mile-long highway in Willmar.
No odd 3dI for this one! I-290, I-37 or bust!
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
My preference for I-290 along the US 52 corridor is twofold. First, it emphasizes that Rochester is connected to I-90. Second, it reinforces the route as an alternative for Twin Cities drivers to get to/from I-90 (though it's 27 miles longer than taking I-94 from St. Paul to Tomah).
It's also lighter traffic and thus more reliable speed-wise, though you do have to go through Rochester.
I had an idea of extending I-74 up to Rochester then along 52 up into St. Paul. I have heard several others propose I-290. Not a bad choice either.
I-194 in St Cloud along MN 15 .....? I had the same thought!
I saved the I-294 designation for MN 610 .....
Please stop resurrecting old threads. I realize that the mods don't really want to delete this since it generated discussion even though it was just started by me being a dumb kid at the time, but could it at least be locked? It doesn't represent my views on the situation right now in any way, shape, or form.
I agree. Time to put this thread out of its misery!