AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Why Wyoming?  (Read 4019 times)

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Former and Current Resident of Alanland

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:44:04 AM
Why Wyoming?
« on: February 10, 2017, 05:41:38 AM »

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?
Logged
Long live the Alan!

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8554
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 01:43:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2017, 07:25:14 AM »

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.
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Former and Current Resident of Alanland

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:44:04 AM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2017, 08:21:39 AM »

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?
Logged
Long live the Alan!

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2145
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2017, 09:06:18 AM »

Should be Hastings I would think.    Unless my plan to run US 10 through River Falls ever happens, then Saint Paul.
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Former and Current Resident of Alanland

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:44:04 AM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #4 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.
Logged
Long live the Alan!

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 521
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 11:55:05 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2017, 10:00:25 AM »

US 61 north of I-94 and MN 96 are both identified as turnback candidates (as well as MN 120 and MN 244)
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Former and Current Resident of Alanland

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:44:04 AM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #6 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.
Logged
Long live the Alan!

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8554
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 01:43:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2017, 10:33:14 AM »

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.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2145
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2017, 11:37:15 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?
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13181
  • not a kook

  • Age: 9
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:49:16 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2017, 12:24:53 PM »

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?
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I stand with any member of any group who Trump hates. I will do my best to not make America hate again.

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 733
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: October 09, 2017, 04:20:50 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2017, 01:11:41 PM »

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?
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Former and Current Resident of Alanland

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:44:04 AM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2017, 01:17:00 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.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 01:22:36 PM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged
Long live the Alan!

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1325
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Duluth/Superior
  • Last Login: Today at 01:25:04 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2017, 01:54:46 PM »

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.

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2145
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #13 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
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1362
  • Former and Current Resident of Alanland

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 07:44:04 AM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2017, 03:10:09 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.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 03:19:57 PM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged
Long live the Alan!

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2145
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2017, 03:56:17 PM »

US 8 originally went through Wyoming until it moved
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8554
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 01:43:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2017, 04:02:42 PM »

Quote from: NE2
I'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: texaskdog
US 8 originally went through Wyoming until it moved

True, but the move to its current corridor was pre-Interstate.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2145
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2017, 04:18:10 PM »

Maybe 10 should be decommissioned east of I-694/51
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1763
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:02:49 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2017, 04:38:38 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?
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1325
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Duluth/Superior
  • Last Login: Today at 01:25:04 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2017, 08:57:32 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.

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4020
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 18
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 07:14:08 AM
    • Flickr account
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2017, 09:00:24 PM »

US 212 already enters Wyoming.  :)
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus US 2, 13, 50, and several state routes

DO NOT derail a thread into Alanland just for the sake of it or with intent of locking a thread.

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4726
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:09 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2017, 09:07:07 PM »

US 212 already enters Wyoming.  :)

Twice!

Mdcastle

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 521
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 11:55:05 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2017, 12:44:29 AM »

Also, US 10 goes east-west and the 10/61 expressway is mainly north-south.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2145
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2017, 11:20:41 AM »

Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor
Logged

SEWIGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 795
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 05:15:31 PM
Re: Why Wyoming?
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2017, 03:24:06 PM »

Us 10 in far west Wisconsin is fairly minor


Yeah but east of there is a four-lane expressway.  No reason to decommission it. 
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.