Interstate 37 (Minnesota)

[Henry]

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.

[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.

That sounds similar to the routing of the planned US-55.

Knew I couldn't put anything past y'all

[texaskdog]

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??

[Brandon]

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.

[texaskdog]

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

[texaskdog]

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!

[corco]

I-35EE.

I-35EES or I-35EN would be preferred if we're going that route, though the latter would require several other renumberings.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[corco]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[texaskdog]

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.

[midwesternroadguy]

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. 

[SSOWorld]

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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

Also, please spare the comments about the number; this thread isn't about that. It's preliminary, to get the support of Rochester specifically.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

Also, 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.

[Molandfreak]

It's just kind of frustrating because it happened immediately after I asked.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[skluth]

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.

More proof that you can't cure stupid.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

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.

[bugo]

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.

More proof that you can't cure stupid.

-1

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

[silverback1065]

maybe a renumbering would make it easier?

[Trademark]

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.