Interstate 37 (Minnesota)

[Molandfreak]

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, 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.

[froggie]

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.

[FightingIrish]

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.

[NE2]

I-35EE.

[Brandon]

I-35EE.

Nah, I-35DD would be more fun. 

[Molandfreak]

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?

[froggie]

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.

[Henry]

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).

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[texaskdog]

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

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[texaskdog]

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.

[froggie]

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).

[Molandfreak]

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!

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.

[midwesternroadguy]

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. 

[froggie]

Aren'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).

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.

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.

[texaskdog]

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.

[texaskdog]

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.

[Bickendan]

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.

[dfwmapper]

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.

[I94RoadRunner]

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!

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.

[texaskdog]

So will this eventually connect to I-37 in Texas?

[Henry]

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.

[texaskdog]

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.

[Rover_0]

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.