The Minnesota Department of Transportation will be hosting a meeting with representatives from Hennepin County along with Murray and Cottonwood Counties about possibly renumbering one of the two TH 62s in the state. This is being done in response to years of internet complaining, and when reporters asked why this was not simply done in 1988 when the Crosstown route was made into TH 62 despite the Fulda-Windom route already existing, officials said a coffee smudge on the plans resulted in the Crosstown becoming TH 62 instead of TH 82.
But which 62 will be renumbered remains to be seen. MnDOT says the county representatives will compete to keep their 62, with feats of strength such as arm wrestling, hot dish cook-offs, and who can be the most passive-aggressive people in the room as part of the competition.
In addition to losing their 62, losers will have a bucket of lutefisk poured over them. "More incentive to win." one county commissioner said.
The contest will be held whenever the state stops being buried in 12 inches of snow, which could be several months away.
They should eliminate the older MN 62 between US 59 in Fulda and US 71/MN 60 in Windom. The MN 62 segment in the Twin Cities area is a major highway, and should retain the 62 designation. Maybe the Fulda-Windom segment could get the MN 82 designation.
Nah they should totally turn back the segment of MN 62 in the metro area to Hennepin and Dakota counties. Who needs another state highway when there's already I-494?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2023, 01:34:47 PM
They should eliminate the older MN 62 between US 59 in Fulda and US 71/MN 60 in Windom. The MN 62 segment in the Twin Cities area is a major highway, and should retain the 62 designation. Maybe the Fulda-Windom segment could get the MN 82 designation.
Fun fact: MnDOT is Constitutionally required (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/161.114) (see Rt #16) to have the Fulda-Windom route in the state highway system.
My money would be on MN 17. It's not currently in use and would line up with the CSAH 17 that exists east of MN 60 in Windom.
It's an April Fool's joke.
The fact you had to explain that....lol.
But my jimmies are indeed rustled by the duplicity of MN-62.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 01, 2023, 02:17:01 PM
officials said a coffee smudge on the plans resulted in the Crosstown becoming TH 62 instead of TH 82.
This was the first clue. :-D
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 03, 2023, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 01, 2023, 02:17:01 PM
officials said a coffee smudge on the plans resulted in the Crosstown becoming TH 62 instead of TH 82.
This was the first clue. :-D
And oddly enough, that's exactly what I want to happen! Just stick a line in the top right of the 6, and make one of them MN-82!
They should renumber the Crosstown to I-135. Why must I-94 get all the 3di action in the Twin Cities? I-35 should get at least one. (Maybe also designate MN 36 as I-335.)
On the other hand - MN 100 can be I-594.
Save the State-Highway-to-Interstate renumberings for Fictional Highways. It is highly doubtful that those highways will ever become 3dis.
Metro MN 62 east of U.S. 169: MN 212
West of 169: MN 162
Quote from: KCRoadFan on April 10, 2023, 09:35:35 PM
They should renumber the Crosstown to I-135. Why must I-94 get all the 3di action in the Twin Cities? I-35 should get at least one. (Maybe also designate MN 36 as I-335.)
On the other hand - MN 100 can be I-594.
Neither of those highways are interstate quality.
No point in just making every freeway in the cities an interstate. 394, 494, and 694 all cater to long-distance travelers in one way or another. Other freeways primarily cater to local traffic.
But I wouldn't mind if the I-494/MN 5 concurrency were eliminated and the airport spur and Shepard/Warner Road became MN 594.