Why not recommission US 61 north of Duluth? And a good way to connect it: at Forest Lake extend it east along US 8 and then north on scenic Wisconsin 35 up to Superior?
It's been almost 35 years. It's over unfortunately. The North Shore is still Highway 61, so your average joe doesn't know the difference.
Fictional.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 14, 2024, 03:13:06 AMWhy not recommission US 61 north of Duluth? And a good way to connect it: at Forest Lake extend it east along US 8 and then north on scenic Wisconsin 35 up to Superior?
Yeah, there is zero need for this.
If you asked to recommission US 61 to Duluth there could've been some merit to that, but asking for it to be recommissioned further north than that is like asking a wall to move. This would've been better in Fictional as well.
Quote from: Sapphuby on December 14, 2024, 08:21:57 PMIf you asked to recommission US 61 to Duluth there could've been some merit to that, but asking for it to be recommissioned further north than that is like asking a wall to move. This would've been better in Fictional as well.
Any recommissioning is fanciful. There's no real reason to recommission U.S. routes. NHS designation does not coincide with old U.S. route designations, just as one example.
Perhaps they could have de-signed US 61 along Interstate 35 between Wyoming and Duluth and allowed the Duluth-to-Grand Portage segment to remain US 61. Alas, US 61 has as much of a chance of being recommissioned along Interstate 35 (and to the Canadian border) as US 16 has being recommissioned along Interstate 90.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 16, 2024, 03:19:13 PMPerhaps they could have de-signed US 61 along Interstate 35 between Wyoming and Duluth and allowed the Duluth-to-Grand Portage segment to remain US 61. Alas, US 61 has as much of a chance of being recommissioned along Interstate 35 (and to the Canadian border) as US 16 has being recommissioned along Interstate 90.
What research I've done indicates the route was already mostly ghosted by 1990 (similar to US 12 and US 52 in the state). The things MnDOT cited as reasons to pursue the decommissioning were things they were already long doing.
MnDOT also applied to decommission 61 in I believe 1971, but was denied, with my guess being because I-35 was not complete between MSP and Duluth until 1977.
In fact, haven't I seen somewhere that MnDOT would like to truncate US 61 back still further, perhaps to the point where it meets I-94 in St. Paul?
Quote from: invincor on December 17, 2024, 11:20:39 AMIn fact, haven't I seen somewhere that MnDOT would like to truncate US 61 back still further, perhaps to the point where it meets I-94 in St. Paul?
Might as well trucate it where it meets US-10 southeast of the cities then.
Have there been any official proposals to truncate US 61 from its present terminus at Interstate 35's Exit 135 in Wyoming? If 61 were to be truncated further, it would probably end at US 10 in Hastings.
MnDOT has expressed it would like to make that truncation eventually (I think by 2030 was the hope, but that might be optimistic now). Some of the more exurban towns that would lose 61 have voiced concerns about it.
It would probably keep the useless concurrency to I-94 because 61 is the better known route number locally on that duplex.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 04:19:02 PMQuote from: texaskdog on December 14, 2024, 03:13:06 AMWhy not recommission US 61 north of Duluth? And a good way to connect it: at Forest Lake extend it east along US 8 and then north on scenic Wisconsin 35 up to Superior?
Yeah, there is zero need for this.
It is odd that the only connection between Duluth and Thunder Bay on the US side is a state route, however. Normally such a major corridor would at least be a US route.
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2024, 08:38:38 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 04:19:02 PMQuote from: texaskdog on December 14, 2024, 03:13:06 AMWhy not recommission US 61 north of Duluth? And a good way to connect it: at Forest Lake extend it east along US 8 and then north on scenic Wisconsin 35 up to Superior?
Yeah, there is zero need for this.
It is odd that the only connection between Duluth and Thunder Bay on the US side is a state route, however. Normally such a major corridor would at least be a US route.
Major corridor? It averages about 1,000 vpd near the border. They're two cities of about 100k, 200 miles away from one another.
Fictional
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 14, 2024, 10:25:40 AMIt's been almost 35 years. It's over unfortunately. The North Shore is still Highway 61, so your average joe doesn't know the difference.
Yes I would have just extended MN 23 since it already goes to Duluth. Was that ever considered?
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 17, 2024, 02:08:18 PMMnDOT has expressed it would like to make that truncation eventually (I think by 2030 was the hope, but that might be optimistic now). Some of the more exurban towns that would lose 61 have voiced concerns about it.
It would probably keep the useless concurrency to I-94 because 61 is the better known route number locally on that duplex.
It takes Minnesota forever to decommission highways. I moved away in 2006 and they had been talking about several for years before that, such as MN 47 & MN 65 in Minneapolis, MN 96, MN 120....maybe moving MN 5 to Shepard Road.
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2024, 08:38:38 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on December 14, 2024, 04:19:02 PMQuote from: texaskdog on December 14, 2024, 03:13:06 AMWhy not recommission US 61 north of Duluth? And a good way to connect it: at Forest Lake extend it east along US 8 and then north on scenic Wisconsin 35 up to Superior?
Yeah, there is zero need for this.
It is odd that the only connection between Duluth and Thunder Bay on the US side is a state route, however. Normally such a major corridor would at least be a US route.
It was, it is no longer, it doesn't matter.
Wyoming to Duluth is 124 miles, and with the presence of I-35 now being the only route between these two places, this is too much ground to make up for such an ambitious project. And yes, this should go into Fictional Highways, as there currently is no push for this, and the decommissioned part north of Duluth is still Highway 61, just with a state shield instead.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 17, 2024, 10:21:35 PMQuote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on December 14, 2024, 10:25:40 AMIt's been almost 35 years. It's over unfortunately. The North Shore is still Highway 61, so your average joe doesn't know the difference.
Yes I would have just extended MN 23 since it already goes to Duluth. Was that ever considered?
No idea. But at least it's still Highway 61.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 17, 2024, 10:23:02 PMIt takes Minnesota forever to decommission highways.
Yes...there's a number of reason for this. Primarily, MnDOT's Turnback Fund is paltry compared to the need. Furthermore, most jurisdictions demand a major resurfacing (if not outright reconstruction) of the highway in question before they'll agree to take it over from MnDOT. And the state's Municipal Consent law gives those local jurisdictions leverage in the negotiations.
Reminds me of an old thread. Someone suggested it and Agent Steel got snarky at the user, and then got snarky with me for bashing him for getting on the users case.
Good ole Jake. Another user gone.
If he stayed it would be interesting to see arguments with him and Rothman. :sombrero: I'm sure those two would clash constantly.
What I would like to happen, is if 61 is eventually handed to the counties that the current old alignment of 61 north of Wyoming marked as Chisago CSAH 30 is renumbered to 61 for continuity with Pine County and Carlton County's sections.
Quote from: invincor on December 17, 2024, 11:20:39 AMIn fact, haven't I seen somewhere that MnDOT would like to truncate US 61 back still further, perhaps to the point where it meets I-94 in St. Paul?
That's been a rumor of over 20 years now.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 13, 2025, 07:19:28 PMQuote from: invincor on December 17, 2024, 11:20:39 AMIn fact, haven't I seen somewhere that MnDOT would like to truncate US 61 back still further, perhaps to the point where it meets I-94 in St. Paul?
That's been a rumor of over 20 years now.
It's not a rumor. It's the plan.
I wonder if it was ever considered that they could decommission US 61 north of I-94 now and then rename that segment MN 561 (or something like that) until the state turns back the highway to the various communities on the route.
Quote from: DandyDan on February 15, 2025, 09:15:49 PMI wonder if it was ever considered that they could decommission US 61 north of I-94 now and then rename that segment MN 561 (or something like that) until the state turns back the highway to the various communities on the route.
So...renumber it twice?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2025, 09:56:15 AMQuote from: DandyDan on February 15, 2025, 09:15:49 PMI wonder if it was ever considered that they could decommission US 61 north of I-94 now and then rename that segment MN 561 (or something like that) until the state turns back the highway to the various communities on the route.
So...renumber it twice?
I suppose you could think of it like that. But if MNDoT knows it wants to get rid of it, why wait until they have a deal with every single community on the route? Call it MN 561 in the interim. If they make a deal with Maplewood, the piece in Maplewood goes. If they make a deal with Forest Lake, then the piece in Forest Lake goes. It continues until eventually, it's all gone.
Quote from: DandyDan on February 17, 2025, 07:45:13 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2025, 09:56:15 AMQuote from: DandyDan on February 15, 2025, 09:15:49 PMI wonder if it was ever considered that they could decommission US 61 north of I-94 now and then rename that segment MN 561 (or something like that) until the state turns back the highway to the various communities on the route.
So...renumber it twice?
I suppose you could think of it like that. But if MNDoT knows it wants to get rid of it, why wait until they have a deal with every single community on the route? Call it MN 561 in the interim. If they make a deal with Maplewood, the piece in Maplewood goes. If they make a deal with Forest Lake, then the piece in Forest Lake goes. It continues until eventually, it's all gone.
I'm think about it like that, because that's actually what you are proposing.
And I think you are misunderstanding something. My guess is MnDOT wants to get rid of the state maintenance responsibilities. I doubt they care much about the actual number.
There had been a MN 361 designated between Rush City and Rock Creek along US 61's old alignment. It started at Interstate 35's Exit 159, went east on County Highway 1 into Rush City, then straight north on old US 61 to end at MN 70 in Rock Creek. It lasted from 1969 to 2011, when it was decommissioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_State_Highway_361.
Quote from: DandyDan on February 17, 2025, 07:45:13 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2025, 09:56:15 AMQuote from: DandyDan on February 15, 2025, 09:15:49 PMI wonder if it was ever considered that they could decommission US 61 north of I-94 now and then rename that segment MN 561 (or something like that) until the state turns back the highway to the various communities on the route.
So...renumber it twice?
I suppose you could think of it like that. But if MNDoT knows it wants to get rid of it, why wait until they have a deal with every single community on the route? Call it MN 561 in the interim. If they make a deal with Maplewood, the piece in Maplewood goes. If they make a deal with Forest Lake, then the piece in Forest Lake goes. It continues until eventually, it's all gone.
Not unlike what's been happening with 101 through Carver County...bits and pieces here and there as MnDOT comes to agreement with the locals.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 17, 2025, 04:02:37 PMThere had been a MN 361 designated between Rush City and Rock Creek along US 61's old alignment. It started at Interstate 35's Exit 159, went east on County Highway 1 into Rush City, then straight north on old US 61 to end at MN 70 in Rock Creek. It lasted from 1969 to 2011, when it was decommissioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_State_Highway_361.
Because I-35 already enters all the relevant cities listed on the Constitutional Route 1 definition as it relates to turning back US 61 from Wyoming south, having to create a dummy state route to maintain compliance like with 361 until Rush City and Pine City expanded to encompass I-35 would not be needed this time.
It would have been understandable if MN 361 had been a Business 35 instead (although a Business 35 would have had to follow MN 70 westward back to Interstate 35). The only Business 35 that was ever designated along old US 61 was the one through Pine City (just to the north of where MN 361 used to exist).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2025, 03:32:12 PMIt would have been understandable if MN 361 had been a Business 35 instead (although a Business 35 would have had to follow MN 70 westward back to Interstate 35). The only Business 35 that was ever designated along old US 61 was the one through Pine City (just to the north of where MN 361 used to exist).
The issue though is the route needed to be state-maintained. Unless this hypothetical I-35 business loop was state-maintained (and it would have had to go up to Pine City and back to I-35 on the also-now-decommissioned TH 324), it would not have been in compliance with the state constitution.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 17, 2025, 08:42:14 AMQuote from: DandyDan on February 17, 2025, 07:45:13 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on February 16, 2025, 09:56:15 AMQuote from: DandyDan on February 15, 2025, 09:15:49 PMI wonder if it was ever considered that they could decommission US 61 north of I-94 now and then rename that segment MN 561 (or something like that) until the state turns back the highway to the various communities on the route.
So...renumber it twice?
I suppose you could think of it like that. But if MNDoT knows it wants to get rid of it, why wait until they have a deal with every single community on the route? Call it MN 561 in the interim. If they make a deal with Maplewood, the piece in Maplewood goes. If they make a deal with Forest Lake, then the piece in Forest Lake goes. It continues until eventually, it's all gone.
I'm think about it like that, because that's actually what you are proposing.
And I think you are misunderstanding something. My guess is MnDOT wants to get rid of the state maintenance responsibilities. I doubt they care much about the actual number.
The point is that if they were to renumber that portion, they would have a much easier time negotiating the turnback, because they could turn it back in bits and pieces rather than being boxed into it all in one go. The more sections go, the fewer sections that are actively being maintained by MnDOT, thereby saving money. They could even reuse some old signs from TH 361 if they wish.