AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Minnesota 316  (Read 773 times)

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2498
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 06, 2019, 11:48:54 AM
Minnesota 316
« on: December 08, 2018, 06:54:14 PM »

Is US 61 ever going to take over that routing?  It was rumored when I lived up there and I've already been in Texas 12 years.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2452
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:06:48 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2018, 10:26:13 PM »

One of the problems is that the path of Hastings’ development has been steadily swallowing up 316, which will make widening it and tying it into the existing expressway beginning at the south junction more difficult. The north 61/316 junction has also become a cluster-F of its own with a car dealership and nearby homes. Honestly at this point MnDOT just seems to have no interest in a full-on 61/316 swap, just trying to make the improvements to 316 it can afford.
Logged
It sucks that you think where I’m from is whack, but as long as that’s enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10848
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:30:56 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2018, 09:58:26 AM »

MnDOT has long identified turning back US 61 between the two 316 junctions (as well as MN 20 and MN 50) as a goal.  The logical routing of US 61 in such a scenario would be along MN 316.

However, 3 of the 4 route legs at US 61/MN 20/MN 50 are Constitutional Routes (both legs of US 61 and MN 20), and the definition of C.R. 20 specifies that it ends at C.R. 3 in Douglas Township (the township surrounding Miesville and where the US 61/MN 50 and MN 20/MN 50 junctions are located).  I just don't see how MnDOT can do its desired turnbacks and reroute US 61 to MN 316 while maintaining Constitutional Route continuity.
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2452
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: November 11, 2019, 06:06:48 PM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2018, 05:48:53 PM »

Miesville isn’t specified in the CR 3 definition, so it depends on how strictly one interprets the “intervening and adjacent communities” portion of the clause. What I think could happen is 61 taken over 316 and MN 50 extended east through Miesville to the current south 61/316 junction. The current leg of 61 from Hastings to MN 20/50 could be turned back. Probably the best possible scenario.
Logged
It sucks that you think where I’m from is whack, but as long as that’s enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4134
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 04:05:59 PM
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2018, 07:36:08 AM »

Miesville isn’t specified in the CR 3 definition, so it depends on how strictly one interprets the “intervening and adjacent communities” portion of the clause. What I think could happen is 61 taken over 316 and MN 50 extended east through Miesville to the current south 61/316 junction. The current leg of 61 from Hastings to MN 20/50 could be turned back. Probably the best possible scenario.

No, but in the CR 20 definition, it states that it ends at a junction with CR 3 in Douglas Township. Moving US-61 onto 316 and turning back either leg of old US-61 would invalidate that, because there would no longer be a path for CR 20 to meet CR 3 in the township (i.e., the end of CR 20 would either then be within Hastings, or in adjacent Goodhue County, east of Miesville.)

To put it simply, the definition of CR 20 means that the two legs of US-61 (really, CR 3) have to remain a state highway.

Side note: It also means that the ~375 feet of MN-50 between the 50/20 and the 50/61 junctions is CR 20.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2018, 07:49:31 AM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10848
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:30:56 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2018, 01:50:10 PM »

^^ True it's not in the C.R. 3 definition, but as MNHighwayMan reiterated, C.R. 20's definition effectively roots C.R. 3 to Douglas Township.
Logged

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 06:58:02 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2019, 04:35:21 PM »

What is needed is a constitutional amendment to convert all of the 1920 constitutional routes to statutory legislative routes, which can be amended by law.

This is such a technical amendment that it probably would not pass. Plus, I suspect representatives from some far out rural areas would see it as a way for the state to abandon state highway connections to their areas.
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2498
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 06, 2019, 11:48:54 AM
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2019, 12:57:32 AM »

Miesville isn’t specified in the CR 3 definition, so it depends on how strictly one interprets the “intervening and adjacent communities” portion of the clause. What I think could happen is 61 taken over 316 and MN 50 extended east through Miesville to the current south 61/316 junction. The current leg of 61 from Hastings to MN 20/50 could be turned back. Probably the best possible scenario.

No, but in the CR 20 definition, it states that it ends at a junction with CR 3 in Douglas Township. Moving US-61 onto 316 and turning back either leg of old US-61 would invalidate that, because there would no longer be a path for CR 20 to meet CR 3 in the township (i.e., the end of CR 20 would either then be within Hastings, or in adjacent Goodhue County, east of Miesville.)

To put it simply, the definition of CR 20 means that the two legs of US-61 (really, CR 3) have to remain a state highway.

Side note: It also means that the ~375 feet of MN-50 between the 50/20 and the 50/61 junctions is CR 20.

What other states have so many silly guidelines?
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4134
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 04:05:59 PM
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2019, 03:30:21 AM »

That's hardly a silly guideline. The point my post makes is simply a consequence of the wording.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2498
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 06, 2019, 11:48:54 AM
Re: Minnesota 316
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2019, 12:55:39 AM »

That's hardly a silly guideline. The point my post makes is simply a consequence of the wording.

These legislative routings
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.