as far as I know, this was never US-65, but was it ever considered? (same way CA had CA-95 and 195, and AZ had AZ-95 in anticipation of US-95 being extended)
it follows a very logical corridor for what US-65 could take, especially before the elimination of the north end in favor of I-35. in fact, my 1942 map shows the two 65s very close to being chained together.
"Steve has a 1934 Minnesota state highway map that shows US 65 extending northward to US 210 at McGregor (now MN 210). Apparently there are other maps from the same year that indicate US 2 at Swan River was the northern terminus. However, it's unlikely that the route was ever actually signed north of the Twin Cities, and even if it was, it only lasted for about a year."
http://www.usends.com/60-69/065/065.html
The same thing happened with US 218/MN 218.
thanks for the info!
why the AASHO lack of enthusiasm for signing US-65 along the MN-65 corridor? not enough cities/towns/traffic to serve? today, MN-65 appears to be a comparatively minor route, taking lots of 90 degree turns (implying it wasn't important enough for curve-straightening upgrades) but I do not know if that was the case in the 20s-30s-40s.
MN 65 appears to always have been a secondary route to the north woods, and it takes a long time through areas that aren't particularly important to get places that can be traveled to faster by other routes. I have a map from about 1934, and 10, 53/61, and 169 are all paved heading to the north while MN 65 is mostly gravel north of MN 27. Granted other US highways were gravel at the time, particularly in the SW, but it does give an idea of the status. Going back farther, in the mid 1920s the other roads were all "improved" while what became 65 had significant "dirt" sections.
I don't know what you mean by "almost chained together". They touched each other, meeting at 3rd and Washington, from the begining of the number to 1980. I'm old enough to remember some dark green spots where the US 65 shields had been pulled down of I-35W.
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 14, 2012, 11:58:09 PM
I don't know what you mean by "almost chained together". They touched each other, meeting at 3rd and Washington, from the begining of the number to 1980. I'm old enough to remember some dark green spots where the US 65 shields had been pulled down of I-35W.
I couldn't resolve that level of detail on my map - wasn't sure if they ended at each other, or just came close.
as far as I know, there are no surviving US-65 shields north of the terminus. there was, in October 2009 anyway, a single '57 spec I-35 shield in Geneva on old 65.
also, I believe all the old 61 shields are gone... we'll find out for sure tomorrow!
Parts of MN 65 were gravel up until the '80s or '90s.
It would seem like MN 65 would be a logical continuation of US 65, but once you are past the Twin Cities area, the only two cities over 1,000 population on MN 65 are Cambridge, which isn't that far north of the Twin Cities area, and Mora, which isn't all that far north of Cambridge. Nashwauk probably had at least 1,000 population during the Iron Range's peak years. But there is basically nothing north of Mora. Also, MN 65 is too close to I-35 (formerly US 61), which goes to Duluth, which counts as somewhere, and it's too close to US 169, which I believe is the favored route of Twin Cities residents going up north for fishing and boating, not to mention the fact Mille Lacs Lake is right off of US 169. Add that to the fact that MN doesn't like to sign US routes to interstates and it is reasonable to see why MN 65 is not part of US 65.
There were three US 61 shields at least that lasted well into the MN 61 era- Ely, County 3, and the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area. The first two I confirmed gone with Google Street View
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F081004%2Fview4.JPG&hash=24424faa8a56894adf33dd0716007521d138f9f6)
from http://www.okroads.com/guides/mn/i35.html
Still there in 2009: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=46.729744,-92.203632&spn=0.006707,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=46.729744,-92.203632&panoid=_Y-XlXldSXjv2NckFdte7g&cbp=12,294.23,,1,-9.82
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 14, 2012, 11:19:54 PM
thanks for the info!
why the AASHO lack of enthusiasm for signing US-65 along the MN-65 corridor? not enough cities/towns/traffic to serve? today, MN-65 appears to be a comparatively minor route, taking lots of 90 degree turns (implying it wasn't important enough for curve-straightening upgrades) but I do not know if that was the case in the 20s-30s-40s.
The original 1927 routing for U.S. 65 took it to St. Paul, along what is now MN-3 from Faribault. In 1934, it changed routing at Farmington and went west and north along MN-50 (that road is now Dakota CSAH 50), entering Minneapolis along Lyndale Avenue. As noted above, for one year (1934-35) it extended north from downtown Minneapolis to the northern part of the state, and this is the route now designated MN-65. Upon construction of I-35W, U.S. 65 was routed along the freeway and exited downtown onto 4th and 5th Avenues. It ended at Washington Avenue and at that point became MN-65. This is how it was marked when I moved to Minneapolis in 1977.
The removal of the segment along I-35/35W and extension of MN-65 south to I-35W took place, I would guess, late 1980s. Now, MN-65 ends at its original south terminus (3rd Avenue and Washington Avenue) and 4th and 5th Avenues are city streets only. Thus, you won't see a MN-65 marker at the downtown exit on I-35W, though the freeway-like offramp had MN-65 2/10-mileposts the last time I was there.
I, for one, think it would still be cool if U.S. 65 were signed all the way up there. MN Dot would do the "65 follow 35" thing, but beyond that it's still important regionally and unbypassed all the way up to U.S. 2, and I still would sign it to U.S. 71 as an alternate International Falls route (people from Grand Rapids and the surrounding area still view it as a shortcut) and cosign with 71 north of there :nod:
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2012, 12:44:30 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F081004%2Fview4.JPG&hash=24424faa8a56894adf33dd0716007521d138f9f6)
from http://www.okroads.com/guides/mn/i35.html
Still there in 2009: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=46.729744,-92.203632&spn=0.006707,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=46.729744,-92.203632&panoid=_Y-XlXldSXjv2NckFdte7g&cbp=12,294.23,,1,-9.82
Note the state name in the I-shield and the old design for Skyline Parkway Scenic Byway too. I haven't been to the area since they changed the design.
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 15, 2012, 01:28:33 PM
I, for one, think it would still be cool if U.S. 65 were signed all the way up there. MN Dot would do the "65 follow 35" thing, but beyond that it's still important regionally and unbypassed all the way up to U.S. 2, and I still would sign it to U.S. 71 as an alternate International Falls route (people from Grand Rapids and the surrounding area still view it as a shortcut) and cosign with 71 north of there :nod:
MN-65 north of Nashwauk, through the Nett Lake Reservation, is a pretty remote and sparsely-traveled road. Part of it was gravel until a few years ago. I think the ADT is in the 100 range - hardly a candidate for a U.S. route.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on December 16, 2012, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 15, 2012, 01:28:33 PM
I, for one, think it would still be cool if U.S. 65 were signed all the way up there. MN Dot would do the "65 follow 35" thing, but beyond that it's still important regionally and unbypassed all the way up to U.S. 2, and I still would sign it to U.S. 71 as an alternate International Falls route (people from Grand Rapids and the surrounding area still view it as a shortcut) and cosign with 71 north of there :nod:
MN-65 north of Nashwauk, through the Nett Lake Reservation, is a pretty remote and sparsely-traveled road. Part of it was gravel until a few years ago. I think the ADT is in the 100 range - hardly a candidate for a U.S. route.
That's why I said that it was important up until U.S. 2. MN 6 is a better way to get up to 71 because it doesn't meander as much.
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Minnesota Trunk Highway 65"? ;)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 17, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Minnesota Trunk Highway 65"? ;)
probably. I call everything of that classification "state highway", regardless of which state and what name they may have for it.
QuoteThe removal of the segment along I-35/35W and extension of MN-65 south to I-35W took place, I would guess, late 1980s.
I believe it was 1980, based on MnDOT documents. The "dark green spots" on guide signage that Monte referred to earlier existed in the early-to-mid 80s, until a sign replacement project (either 1985 or 1987, don't remember which) took them out, and coincidentally added exit numbers to I-35W between I-494 and downtown.
As for MN 65 further north, ADT is as low as 45 in segments north of MN 1, in part why it stayed gravel for so long...the last gravel segment was paved in 2000. By most accounts, it shouldn't even be a state highway north of MN 1, let alone a US route.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2012, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 17, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Minnesota Trunk Highway 65"? ;)
probably. I call everything of that classification "state highway", regardless of which state and what name they may have for it.
Possibly. Then again, Interstates are also officially (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.12) part of Minnesota's trunk highway system, but even the nitpickiest roadgeek wouldn't say I-94 ought to be called Trunk Highway 94.
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
"Steve has a 1934 Minnesota state highway map that shows US 65 extending northward to US 210 at McGregor (now MN 210). Apparently there are other maps from the same year that indicate US 2 at Swan River was the northern terminus. However, it's unlikely that the route was ever actually signed north of the Twin Cities, and even if it was, it only lasted for about a year."
http://www.usends.com/60-69/065/065.html
The same thing happened with US 218/MN 218.
Steve being me....I do have this map. I'd be happy to try & hunt down a scanner if anyone wants to see it. Of course I wasn't there to actually see it signed.
We used to take this road to the cabin every year. Once I-35 increased over 55 MPH there was little need to. It's not a very important road, with 169 on the other side too.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 18, 2012, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
"Steve has a 1934 Minnesota state highway map that shows US 65 extending northward to US 210 at McGregor (now MN 210). Apparently there are other maps from the same year that indicate US 2 at Swan River was the northern terminus. However, it's unlikely that the route was ever actually signed north of the Twin Cities, and even if it was, it only lasted for about a year."
http://www.usends.com/60-69/065/065.html
The same thing happened with US 218/MN 218.
Steve being me....I do have this map. I'd be happy to try & hunt down a scanner if anyone wants to see it. Of course I wasn't there to actually see it signed.
We used to take this road to the cabin every year. Once I-35 increased over 55 MPH there was little need to. It's not a very important road, with 169 on the other side too.
Me also being Steve - who has provided some historic information to Dale in the past - it's interesting that I also have this map.
sorry, but one of you is gonna have to be known as Alan from now on...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneSteveLimit
Well, I think I win this battle.
I think I was "Steve" first.
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2012, 12:44:30 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.okroads.com%2F081004%2Fview4.JPG&hash=24424faa8a56894adf33dd0716007521d138f9f6)
from http://www.okroads.com/guides/mn/i35.html
Still there in 2009: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=46.729744,-92.203632&spn=0.006707,0.016512&gl=us&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=46.729744,-92.203632&panoid=_Y-XlXldSXjv2NckFdte7g&cbp=12,294.23,,1,-9.82
Note the state name in the I-shield and the old design for Skyline Parkway Scenic Byway too. I haven't been to the area since they changed the design.
Unfortunately I can confirm that these signs have been replaced as of 2011. Most likely a casualty of the I-35 Mega Project.
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
There were three US 61 shields at least that lasted well into the MN 61 era- Ely, County 3, and the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area. The first two I confirmed gone with Google Street View
one of those was the MINNESOTA US 61.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTJwwHRgxInkDWvfAOeimsj6A4tG4rcYpumDyT7Pt-2olLy2-rveYlc2Jcf&hash=812eb6dabb442e6cf576519d702094b997e1d2dc)
one is shown in this thread (green guide sign). anyone got a photo of the third?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 02, 2013, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
There were three US 61 shields at least that lasted well into the MN 61 era- Ely, County 3, and the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area. The first two I confirmed gone with Google Street View
one of those was the MINNESOTA US 61.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTJwwHRgxInkDWvfAOeimsj6A4tG4rcYpumDyT7Pt-2olLy2-rveYlc2Jcf&hash=812eb6dabb442e6cf576519d702094b997e1d2dc)
one is shown in this thread (green guide sign). anyone got a photo of the third?
That's number 4 then.
Excuse the quality, these are scans from throwing prints on a flatbed back when I was trying to fit an entire web site into 15 mb of space.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FImage1_zps7de8662f.jpg&hash=38ac14c42f47c04090516df2b4b8ce12c57ece42)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FImage2-2_zps7bccf2d5.jpg&hash=2de4e58802dc6220109200c0fc3732f23588fe37)
These were put up by a contractor in Pine City.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi699.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv358%2FMdcastleman%2FImage3_zpsfec787f5.jpg&hash=c676e636bc501513d652ac1735964652b5bfe09e)
A county created oddball in Wisconsin and the famous Itasca shiedl
that US-10 in Wisconsin is perfectly made to state 1962-72 specification. it very likely dates to that time period. there are several of those still around in the state.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19650121i1.jpg)
that said, my search of about three weeks ago turned up no new finds, and several (a US-2, US-8, and a US-53) were all gone.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 03, 2013, 01:05:00 PM
that US-10 in Wisconsin is perfectly made to state 1962-72 specification. it very likely dates to that time period. there are several of those still around in the state.
After the state stopped making those signs, counties still developed those signs, particularly on "JCT" signs on county highways. A distinction was that the font on the numbers may have differed such as the "10" on that example which is bolder than the old state signs.
Quote from: Big John on January 03, 2013, 01:12:53 PM
After the state stopped making those signs, counties still developed those signs, particularly on "JCT" signs on county highways. A distinction was that the font on the numbers may have differed such as the "10" on that example which is bolder than the old state signs.
that does certainly explain why so many of them survive.
the 10 is indeed bolder, but given how sloppy a lot of Wisconsin signage is, I called it conforming to specification.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on December 18, 2012, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 18, 2012, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
"Steve has a 1934 Minnesota state highway map that shows US 65 extending northward to US 210 at McGregor (now MN 210). Apparently there are other maps from the same year that indicate US 2 at Swan River was the northern terminus. However, it's unlikely that the route was ever actually signed north of the Twin Cities, and even if it was, it only lasted for about a year."
http://www.usends.com/60-69/065/065.html
The same thing happened with US 218/MN 218.
Steve being me....I do have this map. I'd be happy to try & hunt down a scanner if anyone wants to see it. Of course I wasn't there to actually see it signed.
We used to take this road to the cabin every year. Once I-35 increased over 55 MPH there was little need to. It's not a very important road, with 169 on the other side too.
Me also being Steve - who has provided some historic information to Dale in the past - it's interesting that I also have this map.
No kidding. Steve must be a good map name :) Doing my annual closet cleaning today and just happened to pull it out and look at it again. Gotta love the old maps.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 18, 2012, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 14, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
"Steve has a 1934 Minnesota state highway map that shows US 65 extending northward to US 210 at McGregor (now MN 210). Apparently there are other maps from the same year that indicate US 2 at Swan River was the northern terminus. However, it's unlikely that the route was ever actually signed north of the Twin Cities, and even if it was, it only lasted for about a year."
http://www.usends.com/60-69/065/065.html
The same thing happened with US 218/MN 218.
Steve being me....I do have this map. I'd be happy to try & hunt down a scanner if anyone wants to see it. Of course I wasn't there to actually see it signed.
We used to take this road to the cabin every year. Once I-35 increased over 55 MPH there was little need to. It's not a very important road, with 169 on the other side too.
http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210
Is this the map?
That's the one! :)
While we're on the topic of old 61, these popped up in Chisago County this year along the old 61 routing (County Road 30) as a county initiative.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi248.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg198%2Fthehighwayman394%2Fold61_zpscaa2f86a.jpg&hash=f5efb8990a3448f2154f8768632ac9802903f3c8)
These signs are absent from the other counties 61 formerly passed through, but that might be because they've already marked their old segments as County/State 61. Chisago probably didn't want to designate this county road as 61 because current US 61 still exists there (for now).
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 04, 2013, 05:35:39 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 04, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
That's the one! :)
I'm jealous! Neat map :D
When my grandparents sold their house and moved into a care facility several years ago they sold their possessions. Grandpa gave me his map collection for free.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 07, 2013, 12:50:13 AM
While we're on the topic of old 61, these popped up in Chisago County this year along the old 61 routing (County Road 30) as a county initiative.
well, that explains why I missed those signs. I had totally thought they would be on the decommissioned segment parallel to either I-35 or MN-61, so I scoured those roads, and found nothing of the kind.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 07, 2013, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 07, 2013, 12:50:13 AM
While we're on the topic of old 61, these popped up in Chisago County this year along the old 61 routing (County Road 30) as a county initiative.
well, that explains why I missed those signs. I had totally thought they would be on the decommissioned segment parallel to either I-35 or MN-61, so I scoured those roads, and found nothing of the kind.
These are on the decommissioned segment. This is a few miles north of the current end of 61. Where US 61 now takes a left to end at I-35 in Wyoming, County Road 30 is the current designation for old 61 heading north from Wyoming.
oh okay. I only drove from Thunder Bay to Duluth on 61.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 07, 2013, 01:40:27 PM
oh okay. I only drove from Thunder Bay to Duluth on 61.
And you didn't stop to say hello to me while you were here? :D
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 07, 2013, 02:05:57 PM
And you didn't stop to say hello to me while you were here? :D
I think it was about 11pm-1am when I was in Duluth.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 07, 2013, 02:05:57 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 07, 2013, 01:40:27 PM
oh okay. I only drove from Thunder Bay to Duluth on 61.
And you didn't stop to say hello to me while you were here? :D
I might be flying to (or from?) Duluth later this year. Don't let me forget.
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
Post Merge: February 19, 2013, 08:04:13 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on December 15, 2012, 01:08:52 AM
It would seem like MN 65 would be a logical continuation of US 65, but once you are past the Twin Cities area, the only two cities over 1,000 population on MN 65 are Cambridge, which isn't that far north of the Twin Cities area, and Mora, which isn't all that far north of Cambridge. Nashwauk probably had at least 1,000 population during the Iron Range's peak years. But there is basically nothing north of Mora. Also, MN 65 is too close to I-35 (formerly US 61), which goes to Duluth, which counts as somewhere, and it's too close to US 169, which I believe is the favored route of Twin Cities residents going up north for fishing and boating, not to mention the fact Mille Lacs Lake is right off of US 169. Add that to the fact that MN doesn't like to sign US routes to interstates and it is reasonable to see why MN 65 is not part of US 65.
Well MN-65 is a strait shot from Minneapolis to Int. Falls. Besides US-71 and US-53 are the only routes to go near Int. falls and anyone knows US-71 and US-53 both don't go thru the metro :happy: . Also Isanti is another city outside the twin cities that has a population over 1,000 and has MN-65 going thru it.
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
Well MN-65 is a strait shot from Minneapolis to Int. Falls. Besides US-71 and US-53 are the only routes to go near Int. falls and anyone knows US-71 and US-53 both don't go thru the metro :happy:
At an hour more than 35-33-53... But I still want it because it logically has a lot more merit as a US route than US 69 anywhere north of Kansas City. At least it's an independent corridor :D
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 19, 2013, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
Well MN-65 is a strait shot from Minneapolis to Int. Falls. Besides US-71 and US-53 are the only routes to go near Int. falls and anyone knows US-71 and US-53 both don't go thru the metro :happy:
At an hour more than 35-33-53... But I still want it because it logically has a lot more merit as a US route than US 69 anywhere north of Kansas City. At least it's an independent corridor :D
As soon as the speed limit was raised on I-35 over 55 we began taking 35/33/53 to our cabin between Togo & Effie. Just saved a lot of time over those little towns.
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
do you have a map or other source showing US-65 being run that far north?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
do you have a map or other source showing US-65 being run that far north?
Wikipedia :banghead:
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 08:58:26 PM
Wikipedia :banghead:
dude, you just PMed me that exact message as well - albeit, without the context. it took me looking at the most recent posts to figure out what you were trying to say.
what is wrong with you?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 09:03:49 PM
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 08:58:26 PM
Wikipedia :banghead:
dude, you just PMed me that exact message as well - albeit, without the context. it took me looking at the most recent posts to figure out what you were trying to say.
what is wrong with you?
Sorry I'm new
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 09:03:49 PM
dude, you just PMed me that exact message as well - albeit, without the context. it took me looking at the most recent posts to figure out what you were trying to say.
what is wrong with you?
Young guy, not familiar with how things work here. I should take my foot off the sarcasm pedal a little, too.
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 08:58:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
do you have a map or other source showing US-65 being run that far north?
Wikipedia :banghead:
Does your Wikipedia article have a footnote refernce to some outside source? If so, that would be much more beneficial.
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2013, 09:10:38 PM
Young guy, not familiar with how things work here. I should take my foot off the sarcasm pedal a little, too.
he's been blowing up my inbox - and those of the other admins - with inane messages over the last several hours.
he's cruising for something that a bit more heavy-handed than sarcasm here.
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2013, 09:10:38 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 09:03:49 PM
dude, you just PMed me that exact message as well - albeit, without the context. it took me looking at the most recent posts to figure out what you were trying to say.
what is wrong with you?
Young guy, not familiar with how things work here. I should take my foot off the sarcasm pedal a little, too.
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 08:58:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
do you have a map or other source showing US-65 being run that far north?
Wikipedia :banghead:
Does your Wikipedia article have a footnote refernce to some outside source? If so, that would be much more beneficial.
It does not have a footnote. It said this: Minnesota Highway 65 travels north (where U.S. 65 briefly once had from 1934 to 1935) through Cambridge, Mora, and McGregor before terminating at an intersection with U.S. Highway 71 in Littlefork (just south of International Falls).
Maps or it didn't happen.
Quote from: Stalin on February 19, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
Maps or it didn't happen.
*gasp* The wikigods will throw lightning bolts at your head!
Quote from: Stalin on February 19, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
Maps or it didn't happen.
I just found a map at this link http://www.highplainstraveler.info/maps/34mnmap.jpg
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 19, 2013, 07:00:29 PM
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
do you have a map or other source showing US-65 being run that far north?
http://www.highplainstraveler.info/maps/MN1934a.htm
Definitely a map fuckup.
That map is of various proposals in 1934, as evidenced by the fact that 218 goes all the way to Moorhead. There isn't any evidence of 218 making it to Fargo (that was replaced by 10 and 52), and there isn't any evidence that U.S. 65 was signed anywhere north of Swan River.
Thanks for the map scan. I need to surf Steve's site for more maps.
I did the research over 10 years ago on this for my Unofficial Minnesota Highways Page (www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/mnhome.htm). To summarize: Minnesota did a major renumbering of both state and U.S. routes in 1934. My sources included not only official Minnesota, and other map publishers for 1934, but also research at the Minnesota Historical Society of Minnesota Highway Department publications during that period. It appears from this information that Minnesota did indeed post U.S. 65 north of Minneapolis to the northern part of the state, but also U.S. 218 as far north as St. Paul and a U.S. 59 from the Iowa border to Red Wing. I found an early 1935 document indicating that those routes would be renumbered as MN-65, MN-218 and U.S. 63.
There was also a preliminary 1934 plan, for which I've only found snippets of information, that had quite a few different route numbers. These included an extension of U.S. 218 to St. Cloud and then over former U.S. 10N to Moorhead, instead of the MN-218 extension that angled north over what is now MN-25 to Brainerd; also, a U.S. 208 over U.S. (now MN-) 210 between Motley and Carleton. So, if anyone has a 1934 map showing these changes on more than a city inset level let me know.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 20, 2013, 10:05:04 PM
I did the research over 10 years ago on this for my Unofficial Minnesota Highways Page (www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/mnhome.htm). To summarize: Minnesota did a major renumbering of both state and U.S. routes in 1934. My sources included not only official Minnesota, and other map publishers for 1934, but also research at the Minnesota Historical Society of Minnesota Highway Department publications during that period. It appears from this information that Minnesota did indeed post U.S. 65 north of Minneapolis to the northern part of the state, but also U.S. 218 as far north as St. Paul and a U.S. 59 from the Iowa border to Red Wing. I found an early 1935 document indicating that those routes would be renumbered as MN-65, MN-218 and U.S. 63.
There was also a preliminary 1934 plan, for which I've only found snippets of information, that had quite a few different route numbers. These included an extension of U.S. 218 to St. Cloud and then over former U.S. 10N to Moorhead, instead of the MN-218 extension that angled north over what is now MN-25 to Brainerd; also, a U.S. 208 over U.S. (now MN-) 210 between Motley and Carleton. So, if anyone has a 1934 map showing these changes on more than a city inset level let me know.
What was the rationale for 208 instead of 202 or something? It was a lot closer...
Quote from: Molandfreak on February 20, 2013, 10:19:09 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 20, 2013, 10:05:04 PM
I did the research over 10 years ago on this for my Unofficial Minnesota Highways Page (www.steve-riner.com/mnhighways/mnhome.htm). To summarize: Minnesota did a major renumbering of both state and U.S. routes in 1934. My sources included not only official Minnesota, and other map publishers for 1934, but also research at the Minnesota Historical Society of Minnesota Highway Department publications during that period. It appears from this information that Minnesota did indeed post U.S. 65 north of Minneapolis to the northern part of the state, but also U.S. 218 as far north as St. Paul and a U.S. 59 from the Iowa border to Red Wing. I found an early 1935 document indicating that those routes would be renumbered as MN-65, MN-218 and U.S. 63.
There was also a preliminary 1934 plan, for which I've only found snippets of information, that had quite a few different route numbers. These included an extension of U.S. 218 to St. Cloud and then over former U.S. 10N to Moorhead, instead of the MN-218 extension that angled north over what is now MN-25 to Brainerd; also, a U.S. 208 over U.S. (now MN-) 210 between Motley and Carleton. So, if anyone has a 1934 map showing these changes on more than a city inset level let me know.
What was the rationale for 208 instead of 202 or something? It was a lot closer...
It was not rational. It was just a plan that I saw on a 1934 map, nationwide scale, that had this designation on a route that under this plan would not have originated at U.S. 10. In the final 1934 plan, U.S. 10 took the northern branch between St. Cloud and Fargo, and 210 stayed. At least 208 would have been no worse than U.S. 400.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 20, 2013, 10:34:05 PM
At least 208 would have been no worse than U.S. 104.
Fixed. Well, it's a little worse than 104, but not by much.
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2013, 10:37:20 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 20, 2013, 10:34:05 PM
At least 208 would have been no worse than U.S. 104.
Fixed. Well, it's a little worse than 104, but not by much.
It was bad because there was and is U.S. 8 in the general vicinity. If that's analogous to U.S. 4 and 104, which I refuse to go research, then they're equally bad.
http://www.usends.com/mapguy/MapPgs/mapx04.htm
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2013, 01:56:17 AM
Definitely a map fuckup.
how about this map which shows it ending at US-210?
http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9
this map also shows the first US-59. given that that one was never approved by AASHO, I'm doubting that the US-65 extension was official either ... but it may have been signed by Minnesota, in blatant violation of AASHO regulations, because
GeorgiaOklahoma.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 22, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9
What's the deal with US/MN 218?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 22, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2013, 01:56:17 AM
Definitely a map fuckup.
how about this map which shows it ending at US-210?
http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9
this map also shows the first US-59. given that that one was never approved by AASHO, I'm doubting that the US-65 extension was official either ... but it may have been signed by Minnesota, in blatant violation of AASHO regulations, because GeorgiaOklahoma.
Minnesota wanted that route to be U.S. 59 because it was originally State Highway 59 - as it was also in Iowa, though Iowa didn't go along with the U.S. designation. Too bad since it would have been more in the correct location than the U.S. 59 that appeared in 1935. I agree that AASHO likely didn't go along with the 59, 65, 212 and 218 designations/extensions, since the routes were renumbered less than a year after they were originally posted.
Quote from: Stalin on February 23, 2013, 06:05:13 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 22, 2013, 09:38:10 AM
http://reflections.mndigital.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/mdt/id/210/rec/9
What's the deal with US/MN 218?
Minnesota did some really weird shit with 218. The original plan, which I have only seen on 1934 Gousha map city insets or national scale maps, looks like U.S. 218 would have replaced U.S. 10N to Fargo. If that isn't an out of place, wrong-direction route I don't know what is. What they ended up with was a U.S. 218 extension to St. Paul, which became MN-218 along U.S. 52 as far as Becker, then north along a new state highway to Brainerd. In 1935, all of the route north of Owatonna became MN-218. It's now MN-3 from Faribault to St. Paul and MN-25 from Becker to Brainerd.
Quote from: John Madden on February 19, 2013, 03:56:51 AM
US-65 ends at I-35 in Albert lea, MN, but back in the 30's it followed what today is I-35 to Burnsville, MN and then followed I-35W to Minneapolis at MN-65 and then MN-65 would complete US-65's journey to US-71 in Little fork, MN. For a year back in 1934 to 1935 MN-65 didn't exist and it was just US-65 all the way to Little fork.
I know this is bumping up an old thread, but there were signs for US-65 concurrent with I-35 as late as the early to mid 1990's as far north as Faribault. I know this because my then girlfriend, now wife is from there, and I made the drive down there quite often and always thought it was odd.
I don't recall them lasting that long. I also took that corridor often (lived in Minneapolis, grandparents in Hartland), and I recall the US 65 shields being gone by the late 80s. MnDOT usually keeps up to date on signage and sign standards. If there were errant US 65 shields that lasted longer, they were probably on the local roads.
Quote from: froggie on September 30, 2015, 06:12:03 AM
I don't recall them lasting that long. I also took that corridor often (lived in Minneapolis, grandparents in Hartland), and I recall the US 65 shields being gone by the late 80s. MnDOT usually keeps up to date on signage and sign standards. If there were errant US 65 shields that lasted longer, they were probably on the local roads.
They were most definitely on the overpass signs at some of the ramps. The ones that point down the ramp and usually have the name of either the next town or the next major control city on them as you enter the freeway (not sure there's a name for those signs).
Quote from: Mdcastle on December 15, 2012, 12:14:28 PM
There were three US 61 shields at least that lasted well into the MN 61 era- Ely, County 3, and the back exit to the Thompson Hill rest area. The first two I confirmed gone with Google Street View
Not that it matters now (or in 2013), but I'm assuming "County 3" refers to Lake County Road 3?