Why was Wyoming chosen to be the terminus of US-61 (or originally, the point chosen to become concurrent with I-35), as opposed to some place further south like Forest Lake, or further north like North Branch or Pine City? Is it because of the description of CR 1? Or did MnDOT just feel that the road wasn't necessary/important enough past Wyoming to merit the US designation? Or something else?
At the time, Wyoming, Forest Lake, and White Bear Lake did not reach I-35/I-35E, so that segment of US 61 was kept to meet C.R. 1 requirements. Now that all three towns cross I-35/I-35E (both Wyoming and Forest Lake annexed their whole townships...White Bear probably will at some point), there is no longer that requirement, and in fact this segment of US 61 has been on MnDOT's turnback candidate list for several years.
Has MnDOT said where it would likely be turned back to? Forest Lake? I-694? All the way down to I-94 in St. Paul? If it gets turned back to below White Bear Lake, is MN-96 then going to be a spur route, or does it face the threat of elimination too?
Should be Hastings I would think. Unless my plan to run US 10 through River Falls ever happens, then Saint Paul.
Hastings seems much too far. Not to mention US-10 east of 61 is very much a second thought when it comes to the area... I mean, it's the only two-lane section of US-10 left in Minnesota. I can't see MnDOT eliminating 61 that far south, simply for route continuity reasons, even though US-61 would end on a concurrency if terminated at I-94.
US 61 north of I-94 and MN 96 are both identified as turnback candidates (as well as MN 120 and MN 244)
Good to know. MN-120 and 244 have been turnback candidates for over a decade now, though, not? I'm curious to know why the process has more or less completely stalled. It can't be because of the county boundary, can it, seeing as how a solution was found for the 94 to 494 section? MnDOT even spent money resigning all of MN-120 a year or two ago, so I just don't get this at all.
The turnback process is stalled because of A) a lack of funding in the turnback account, and B) occasional disagreements between MnDOT and local jurisdictions as to who does what with the turnback. The local jurisdictions often want some sort of improvement (or roadway swap). Disagreements between MnDOT and Carver County are why parts of MN 101 have taken so long to be turned back.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 10, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
Hastings seems much too far. Not to mention US-10 east of 61 is very much a second thought when it comes to the area... I mean, it's the only two-lane section of US-10 left in Minnesota. I can't see MnDOT eliminating 61 that far south, simply for route continuity reasons, even though US-61 would end on a concurrency if terminated at I-94.
That is why I think US 10 should be routed through River Falls but what is the point of a long duplex?
Quote from: texaskdog on February 10, 2017, 11:37:15 AM
but what is the point of a long duplex?
I'd guess that the freeway in St. Paul is better known as US 61. So what's the point of removing the overlap?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 10, 2017, 10:05:48 AM
Good to know. MN-120 and 244 have been turnback candidates for over a decade now, though, not? I'm curious to know why the process has more or less completely stalled. It can't be because of the county boundary, can it, seeing as how a solution was found for the 94 to 494 section? MnDOT even spent money resigning all of MN-120 a year or two ago, so I just don't get this at all.
I believe they all have been turn back candidates for like 15 years now. Given that amount of time I would just say it's a good bet it's never going to happen. Although MN-120 south of I-94 was turned back some years ago. The question for me is why was US-61 truncated back from it's original northern end?
Quote from: dvferyance on February 10, 2017, 01:11:41 PM
The question for me is why was US-61 truncated back from it's original northern end?
Some time after I-35 was completed, US-61 was moved off its original alignment and onto I-35 (late 70s I think?) Then in 1990 MnDOT essentially said "screw that" and truncated US-61 at Wyoming, and turned the rest northeast of Duluth into MN-61. I guess they were sick of making and posting the extra signs or something, IDK. MnDOT really hates long US Route concurrencies with Interstates, which I presume is why US-12 and 52 are invisible along I-94 in their respective areas.
The DOT had actually petitioned to have 61 truncated as early as 1971, but was rejected at the time likely because I-35 hadn't been finished between Duluth and the Twin Cities yet. There was still a section between Cloquet and Duluth that didn't open until 1975.
One duplex that actually makes sense. but they could have truncated in forest lake or even st paul
Quote from: texaskdog on February 10, 2017, 03:01:28 PM
One duplex that actually makes sense. but they could have truncated in forest lake or even st paul
Not with the definition of Constitutional Route 1, as froggie says above, which at the time I-35 did not meet–not without creating some new auxiliary routes à la MN-361, anyway.
MN Statutes 161.114 Constitutional Trunk Highways, subdivision 2:
Route No. 1. Beginning at a point on the boundary line between the states of Minnesota and Iowa, southeasterly at Albert Lea and thence extending in a northwesterly direction to a point in Albert Lea and thence extending in a northerly direction to a point and on the southerly limits of the city of St. Paul and then beginning at a point on the northerly limits of the city of St. Paul and thence extending in a northerly direction to a point on the westerly limits of the city of Duluth and then beginning at a point on the northerly limits of the city of Duluth and thence extending in a northeasterly direction to a point on the boundary line between the state of Minnesota and the province of Ontario, affording Albert Lea, Owatonna, Faribault, Northfield, Farmington, St. Paul,
White Bear, Forest Lake, Wyoming, Rush City, Pine City, Hinckley, Sandstone, Moose Lake, Carlton, Duluth, Two Harbors, Grand Marais and intervening and adjacent communities a reasonable means of communication, each with the other and other places within the state. [emphasis mine]
Also of note: the inclusion of Rush City and Pine City in the CR 1 definition are what lead to the creation of MN-361 after the construction of I-35 and the relocation of US-61, as 35 did not originally pass through the limits of either city.
US 8 originally went through Wyoming until it moved
Quote from: NE2I'd guess that the freeway in St. Paul is better known as US 61. So what's the point of removing the overlap?
Though MnDOT lists 61 as the primary route, it's fairly well known (at least to non-newbies) by both route designations. I think the main rationale is that 61 is the far-more-prominent route where the two split just north of Hastings.
Quote from: texaskdogUS 8 originally went through Wyoming until it moved
True, but the move to its current corridor was pre-Interstate.
Maybe 10 should be decommissioned east of I-694/51
Quote from: texaskdog on February 10, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Maybe 10 should be decommissioned east of I-694/51
Eh, it's kind of a major corridor in eastern WI, so I'd say no.
I suppose someone will pitch making it part of US 212 east of Hastings, but isn't that just replacing one pile of duplexes for another?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 10, 2017, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 10, 2017, 04:18:10 PM
Maybe 10 should be decommissioned east of I-694/51
Eh, it's kind of a major corridor in eastern WI, so I'd say no.
I suppose someone will pitch making it part of US 212 east of Hastings, but isn't that just replacing one pile of duplexes for another?
For a 212 extension like that there would be a duplex with US 52 and one with 61 (assuming MN 62 and MN 55 are axed from existence in favor of 212 on those current routes). That's all, but I know other people are high on making WIS 29 into 212, which would involve a lot more radical duplezing.
US 212 already enters Wyoming. :)
Also, US 10 goes east-west and the 10/61 expressway is mainly north-south.
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
No reason to do that. Gotta put some number on the bridge over the river.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
No reason to do that. Gotta put some number on the bridge over the river.
Why?????
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
No reason to do that. Gotta put some number on the bridge over the river.
Why?????
Because.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
No reason to do that. Gotta put some number on the bridge over the river.
Why?????
Because.
It's less significant than Stillwater which is MN 36 or WI 64
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 10:40:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
No reason to do that. Gotta put some number on the bridge over the river.
Why?????
Because.
It's less significant than Stillwater which is MN 36 or WI 64
According to WIDOT traffic counts, US-10 carries 14,600 vpd across the St. Croix. WI-64 carries 15,000. Not a significant difference.
They could truncate US 61 to I-94 and then call the segment north of I-94 something like MN 561, couldn't they? If MNDOT knows they are getting rid of it in the future, what difference does it make what number it has?
Getting back to US 61, why did MNDOT waste all that money creating TH 61 signs for the stretch northeast of Duluth when it could have just ghosted it "US 61, follow I-35" between Wyoming and Duluth as it did with US 10, US 12, and US 52? It seemed like that was a lot of unnecessary money to waste developing a new sign number when it could have addressed a concurrency much more efficiently.
Why are concurrencies so bad? What's wrong with route continuity anyway? With the discussion of extending US 212, why would the short concurrencies with TH 55 or US 61 be so bad?
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on February 12, 2017, 09:02:21 AM
Getting back to US 61, why did MNDOT waste all that money creating TH 61 signs for the stretch northeast of Duluth when it could have just ghosted it "US 61, follow I-35" between Wyoming and Duluth as it did with US 10, US 12, and US 52? It seemed like that was a lot of unnecessary money to waste developing a new sign number when it could have addressed a concurrency much more efficiently.
Why are concurrencies so bad? What's wrong with route continuity anyway? With the discussion of extending US 212, why would the short concurrencies with TH 55 or US 61 be so bad?
That's a good question, despite the fact that for approximately 10-15 years US-61 was signed normally along I-35.
Also, US-10 is fully marked in Minnesota - its consecutive concurrencies with 694, 35E, 94, and 61 are all marked with US-10 shields. It's only 12 and 52 that have invisible concurrencies.
Ghosting US 12 and US 52 didn't start until around 1980. (There were still a few stray markers for US 52 west of St Cloud into the 1990s.)
Quote from: Mdcastle on February 12, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
Ghosting US 12 and US 52 didn't start until around 1980. (There were still a few stray markers for US 52 west of St Cloud into the 1990s.)
Hmm, I didn't know that. It must be a cost-saving measure by MnDOT then, and/or they feel it simplifies things for drivers. Still raises the valid question of why they didn't do the same to US-61, though.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 10:52:57 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 10:40:33 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 05:35:35 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway. No reason to decommission it.
It should still be moved from Ellsworth up past River Falls to 94
No reason to do that. Gotta put some number on the bridge over the river.
Why?????
Because.
It's less significant than Stillwater which is MN 36 or WI 64
According to WIDOT traffic counts, US-10 carries 14,600 vpd across the St. Croix. WI-64 carries 15,000. Not a significant difference.
I don't buy it. They are building a huge new bridge in Stillwater and Prescott has a relatively small one
US 52 is completely unnecessary west of Saint Paul. If ND wants to keep it so bad they should just extend 10, giving a more important number a longer route.
Quote from: Mdcastle on February 12, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
Ghosting US 12 and US 52 didn't start until around 1980. (There were still a few stray markers for US 52 west of St Cloud into the 1990s.)
I seem to think it would it began a bit later than 1980, because when I was a kid in the 80's, we would go to the old Montgomery Ward store off of University Ave and the old Sears store by the capitol, all on the same trip, and I do remember University Ave being US 12 and US 52 back then.
Monte's right in that the process generally began in 1980 when US 52 was moved to I-94 between St. Cloud and Brooklyn Park, though I believe there was some co-signage involved at the time. Below is a general timeline of how the route changes which led to the ghosting went down:
1980: US 52 moved to I-94 between St. Cloud and Brooklyn Park (today's CSAH 81 interchange).
Ca. 1983-84: US 52 moved to I-94 between CSAH 81 and the downtown 4th St ramps.
1985: I-94 completed east of I-494/694 to the St. Croix River, a direct upgrade of the pre-existing US 12 alignment.
1988: As part of the "great Hennepin County Highway Swap", US 12 was moved off Washington and University Avenues and onto I-94 between the downtowns. Also as part of this, a gap was created in US 52 (which was NOT moved at the time) between I-35W and the Minneapolis/St. Paul line.
Ca. 1995: US 52 moved onto I-94 between the downtowns. This reroute was approved by AASHTO on April 9, 1994. Turnback of University Ave in St. Paul to Ramsey County was completed June 1, 1996.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 12, 2017, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on February 12, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
Ghosting US 12 and US 52 didn't start until around 1980. (There were still a few stray markers for US 52 west of St Cloud into the 1990s.)
Hmm, I didn't know that. It must be a cost-saving measure by MnDOT then, and/or they feel it simplifies things for drivers. Still raises the valid question of why they didn't do the same to US-61, though.
(sorry for the five-month belated reply) In my own research I've come to the conclusion that MnDOT did indeed begin ghosting US 61 during the 80s before they axed the route entirely in 1990. I found a video of the old US 2 Arrowhead Bridge from 1983 on YouTube which shows them passing by what was then the I-35/US 2 eastern interchange at Central Avenue with no mention of US 61 at the interchange. I've also noted no greenout on any of the few remaining signs from the era. It should be noted that MnDOT originally petitioned for US 61's removal in 1971 but was denied at the time, likely because there were still sections of I-35 that were incomplete between Duluth and the Twin Cities. It was like them quietly scaling back the route's existence so they could drop it altogether later.
US 10 is also pretty busy in Michigan. It's a freeway between Claire and Bay City.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 12, 2017, 05:26:24 PM
US 52 is completely unnecessary west of Saint Paul. If ND wants to keep it so bad they should just extend 10, giving a more important number a longer route.
That is a great idea. US 52 is such an odd route it's starts in South Carolina but makes it's way up to North Dakota and ends at the Canadian border. I would just extend US 10 to Minot to avoid a grid violation. The rest could be downgraded to a state highway.
I don't understand why 61 north of Duluth wasn't significant enough to say a US route, even if there was a gap. I guess it could have been US 153 as well.