State transportation planners will explore rebuilding Interstate 94 at street level between downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis, filling in much of the trench where the freeway currently runs and creating new at-grade pedestrian crossings and bus lanes.
But on another extreme, the Minnesota Department of Transportation said Monday that planners will also study widening and adding lanes to the freeway — an option that alarmed St. Paul city officials who oppose the idea, and activists who wanted to see more fleshed-out plans for redeveloping I-94 as a boulevard.
These were two of 10 “alternatives” that officials deemed workable enough to advance to the next phase of MnDOT’s long-running “Rethinking I-94” master-planning process, which the agency intends to shape reconstruction projects along the freeway for decades to come.
Also among the options MnDOT will study: building new bus transit infrastructure along I-94 and expanding local frontage roads to carry more trips.
MnDOT leaders stressed the agency hasn’t endorsed any of these alternatives. They haven’t ruled out a plan that would basically maintain the freeway in its current configuration. They may even add new alternatives to the mix by summer 2024, after which planners will begin putting all of the options through environmental impact studies, according to agency spokesman Ricardo Lopez.
“There are many things we still need to work through,” MnDOT Commissioner Nancy Daubenberger said Monday, “but we’ve identified a range of roadway alternatives and transit ideas that could work when paired together.”
But planners did definitively reject other ideas for the future of I-94. For instance, planners said Monday they will no longer study adding a light-rail, subway or commuter rail line in the corridor — even if the freeway were ultimately replaced by a surface street. Planners estimated the new line wouldn’t generate enough ridership.
So what might I-94 look like in the future? Here’s a sampling of the ideas MnDOT floated:
‘At-grade’ roadway
Though I-94 currently carries 150,000 trips per day between the two downtowns, the “Rethinking” process has stirred the imaginations of activists who hope the Twin Cities will join a list of other metropolises that have torn out or built lids over freeways to make way for more pedestrian-, transit- and bike-friendly public spaces.
Others have argued that removing I-94 altogether would be impractical, fearing that drivers would clog local roads or other metro area freeways.
At a meeting of Rethinking I-94’s advisory committee, MnDOT planners presented this draft concept for what the corridor could look like without the current freeway (along with another that ran bus lanes down the center):
[image_credit]MnDOT[/image_credit]
That said, the plans didn’t exactly excite the passions of the pro-boulevard crowd. Our Streets advocates worried MnDOT’s “at-grade” option lacked specifics about green space, the width of the rebuilt roadway or plans to convert parts of the corridor into new housing or businesses.
“‘At-grade’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘walkable’ or ‘transit-friendly,’” said Celeste Robinson, an aide to Minneapolis City Council member Robin Wonsley. “When residents are advocating for ‘highway removal,’ they’re advocating for an at-grade boulevard, not filling it in with dirt or replacing it with nothing.”
“I think the best idea is an at-grade roadway that is more of a boulevard conversion,” added Hennepin County Commissioner Angela Conley, who called for MnDOT to bring in an outside expert in boulevard conversions to advise their planning.
There’s also tension between the freeway-removal proposal and an even older idea.
I-94’s construction in the 1960s tore through St. Paul’s historically-Black Rondo neighborhood. For the past decade, many Rondo residents have gravitated to a proposal to build a land bridge over I-94 — a project they feel could not only re-link, but revitalize the old neighborhood. Some activists have argued the idea is short-sighted, and that removing I-94 altogether would have a greater benefit.
In March, the nonprofit ReConnect Rondo received a $2 million federal grant to fund a new study of their land bridge idea. On Monday, MnDOT officials pledged to factor ReConnect Rondo’s findings into their decision-making process.
Dedicated carpool or bus lanes
Another set of alternatives MnDOT will study going forward involves using “managed lanes”: dedicating lanes in either direction of I-94 for buses or E-Z Pass carpool vehicles.
[image_credit]MnDOT[/image_credit]
Officials with MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council (which is helping to evaluate various transit options) said that their initial analysis found that adding express buses in “managed” lanes would result in the fastest transit times. The same scheme, but with one stop built in the middle of the freeway at Snelling Avenue, would be almost as fast.
Adding a total of three new bus stops — at 25th and 27th avenues in Minneapolis and Dale Street in St. Paul, in addition to Snelling — would provide the greatest possible accessibility to transit without slowing travel times too much, the analysis found.
Wider frontage roads, narrower freeway
Another proposed option would narrow I-94, with buses traveling on the shoulder, while also widening frontage roads along the north and south sides of the freeway:
[image_credit]MnDOT[/image_credit]
“We’d like to change the nature of those frontage roads,” Stark said, “to be a lot more like they’re part of the neighborhood and less like they’re part of a freeway system.”
Expanded freeway
But city officials were puzzled by the inclusion of two proposals that would significantly widen I-94, adding at least one “managed” lane throughout the corridor. Here’s one of the options:
[image_credit]MnDOT[/image_credit]
“Why is expansion even on the table like if the goals and the project master vision is to have equity, climate resiliency, etc.?” Jalali said. “Freeway expansion is actually categorically in opposition to those things, and I’m trying to understand how it even got into the mix.”
MnDOT officials answered that the idea was included because the planning process is still in the early stages: “We’re looking at the universe of alternatives,” project manager Melissa Barnes said.
Daubenberger stressed that these concepts, while illustrative, are not very detailed, and cover fairly basic elements — roadway type, the number of lanes, and potential locations for transit stops.
Eventually, planners will take up more detailed questions, such as how intersections would be constructed, what types of trees and landscaping might be included, or whether noise walls should be built, Daubenberger said.
“We don’t have all the answers today,” she said.
So to the activists, why not just scrape the entire twin cities off the map and make it a wild life refuge, why limit your re-imagining to just the I-94 corridor?
A debate among the public educated activist. This is and will be hilarious.
First, it’s “among publicly educated activists.” Grammar still matters.
Second, why do you think they’re publicly educated?
Any reduction in the capacity of 1-94 through that stretch is completely foolish.
I will take this rare opportunity to completely agree with Andy.
Lost in all this seems to be the I in I94. Interstate Highway System. If I am in state A and wish to travel to state C there is usually a need to travel through state B on the Interstate Highway System. And if we are to take our current 3-4 lanes and reduce it to possibly 2 along with a bunch of bike lanes, pedestrian paths, and linear urban forests we better include planning for the fact that I494 and I694 and a few others that will bare the brunt of these changes. Folks still need to get across the metro in an expedient manner. I494 through Bloomington has plenty of problems right now without piling on more traffic.
MnDOT’s own studies show that traffic on I-94 between the two downtowns is almost entirely local, originating and terminating in either Minneapolis or Saint Paul. Traffic that is coming from points beyond the Cities and travelling through the Cities without stopping already tends to follow I-694 (it’s faster and more direct). Reverting I-94 to a more local route could simply mean renaming I-694 to I-94, and the traffic patterns would remain largely the same, with local traffic remaining local and long-distance traffic remaining on the current I-694.
I suspect most of the actual long-haul through traffic doesn’t go through the downtowns, using 694 instead.
So, really, why do we have these massive eyesores spewing air & noise pollution in residential neighborhoods (including 35W through south mpls here), that only serve to facilitate suburban commuters escaping the urban centers where they work? And given the changing nature of work, should we maintain a road system built to support a different kind of economy? It would be foolish to assume future commuting patterns will match those of the past.
Andy! You are spot on! I94 between Mpls and St Paul is a cake-walk. There’s this meme going around that Rondo needs Reparations for its people that look like taking away I94 and creating park-like spaces is the way to go. Who the hell made this up? What’s different about I94 than I35W? Isn’t the definition of an interstate freeway to disrupt persons living along its path? The DOT proposals are kind of silly and must cater to the community that is now Rondo. If Rondo residents are talking about reparations, then jobs and affordable housing are the path to get there. Let’s steer the conversation to jobs and affordable housing and see if I94 can be saved from destruction.
Why are we wasting any money on this studying anything?
I don’t see the stagecoach option. hmmm
Normal Minnesotan: “I hope improving the freeway will make driving safer and commute-time shorter so I’m not running my car as long, thus helping the environment.”
Activist: “It’s all just racism”
Sounds like a waste of dirt and money. However when the activists get seated at the head of the table anything is possible.
If they’re complaint is “it divides the neighborhood” then how would an at grade highway improve that? Seems to me that all the traffic trying to go through the neighborhood would make it a lot worse.
You’re right, an at-grade highway would be far worse, but Our Streets activists were not advocating for an at-grade highway. MnDOT has completely tossed Our Streets recommendations for a four lane boulevard (akin to University Ave) that would have allowed the remaining land to be developed and used for other transportation modes.
No one I know would take 494 or 694 as a re-route of 94. The Capitol Complex would no longer be accessible by the masses were I94 be turned into park space. Real bad idea.
At grade offers the opportunity to enjoy the traffic noise that a lowered roadway has afforded for many years. We will need sound barriers that are 50 feet tall but they would, of course, block the view.
Eliminate the frontage roads entirely and replace with trees. Apparently the local residents don’t want to use the freeway anyway.
Thank you for the graphics, with a story like this they are essential. Strib completely missed the boat on their story yesterday by failing to include them
I’m still trying to find out where MN DOT thinks all the existing traffic is going to go!
Induced demand works in both directions.
The demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct on SR 99 in Seattle a few years ago, and the utter absence of the widely and loudly predicted traffic apocalypse, proves this point.
Some of the proposals I think would actually make travel on I-94 easier. For example, expanding the freeway on each side to add dedicated bus lanes. That seems to work well for I-35W. However, traffic would be shuttered to one side during construction phases, which would put an extra burden on 494 and 694. It is unfortunate that decisions were made decades ago that tore poor communities apart, and the land bridge idea sounds exciting but that would just add even more years onto the project.
The Met Council blundered big time when it failed to put the Green Line along I-94 in the first place. That’s what happens when you (1) don’t know the difference between a train and a streetcar, and (2) when you think big transit projects should be used to promote development and serve real estate interests rather than satisfy transportation needs.
Putting a lid over I-94 in Rondo is a foolish idea: land isn’t worth the cost in that area, and the lid would require long-time maintenance as does any bridge.
The Green Line blunder was not elevating it.
That, or tunneling it, would also work, in my opinion. But if you’re going to spend that kind of dollars for infrastructure, heavy rail would make more sense for satisfaction of need into the far future.
That long-term maintenance would be similar to the periodic closure of the Lowry Tunnel for cleaning.
I love the boulevard concept. It would work. I grew up in Tucson, which is now a metro of over a million people. There is no freeway connecting the city west-to-east. It’s not really a freeway or highway town (there’s no freeway going north-to-south either). But it is a car place. Everyone drives everywhere. They more than make it work with 2-3 lanes in each direction on surface streets with way more controlled intersections than what’s proposed on the twin cities boulevard. Commerce has not come to a grinding halt. People are still able to get to the interstate to drive to another state. The boulevard concept would work just fine here. Would it take longer to drive on a boulevard than going 70+ on a freeway with excess capacity? Yeah. But the benefits more than make up for it. It’s long past time we started having imagination and vision around here. Also, we literally set goals to reduce VMT. Those goals are either virtue signaling or something we should actually try to achieve.
And what are the benfits of a boulevard?
Would love to see a better boulevard vision. I94 should be removed and filled in to make space for housing, businesses, and transit/bike lanes: MNDoT should change the corridor to serve the actual surrounding community. This change would grow the tax base AND decrease wasteful spending on overbuilt innercity highways. A boulevard would be more fiscally responsible and socially equitable.
What do we value more, the city or the time it takes to go through it?
I’ve heard occasional comments about a competing proposal c. 60 years ago: run the east-west freeway more or less where Pierce Butler is now. Can anyone shed light on this history? Is it one of the MNDOT options?
Here is an article talking about having 94 where the Pierce Butler Route is. The gist of the article is that the current route was chosen as it was funded by the Federal Government, whereas the other route wouldn’t have been.
https://original.newsbreak.com/@ron-dansley-1587459/2897858516230-george-herrold-and-his-proposed-northern-route-for-interstate-94
Never too late?
I looked at the map and it sure seemed a much better route from 35W to 35E.
One of my earliest memories is being on Steven’s Ave and about 40th street S and seeing all the houses gone and a long view of empty streets and sidewalks all the way to Downtown. Although a couple of years later it was a great sandbox to play in…
Mabye so. Also noted that by the 1920’s they realized they needed a seperated highway to alleviate surging gridlock on local city streets.
The truth is nothing is going to significantly change for the better. MNDot does not care about the neighboring community or their input. On the other side of the debate, they also do not care if the freeway works or if the changes improve traffic. They don’t have to care about these things, they are accountable to nobody. They are just going to do whatever they are going to do. The “studies” are just a Minnesotan form of graft where MNDot officials hook up friends and relatives with no-work white collar government contracts, like what you find in developing countries run by dictators and criminals.
The draft “purpose and need” document is worth reading. It identifies the following:
▪ Improve mobility for people and goods on, along, and across the corridor in a way that facilitates community connections for all modes
▪ Enhance safety for people and goods on, along, and across the I-94 corridor for all modes
▪ Address aging infrastructure condition within the I-94 corridor
▪ Support transportation objectives consistent with adopted state and regional (Met Council) plans
It specifically mentions:
“Our key findings in analyzing the roadway subsurface along I-94 in the program area is that it is
beyond its useful life and many of the bridges located on or over I-94 in the program area have
problems and will need work within the next 20 years. Some elements of the supporting roadway
infrastructure, including retaining walls, noise walls, and drainage structures, are also in poor
condition and could lead to future travel disruptions and impacts to adjacent properties.”
“MnDOT’s summary as it relates to the state of mobility for people in motorized vehicles along I-94 in
the program area has a demonstrated mobility problem based on poor levels of service, multiple hours
of congestion, reduced vehicle speeds, increases in vehicle- and person-delay, and poor travel time
reliability”
“There is demand for walking and biking on both sides of I-94 in the program area, but roadways
crossing or next to I-94 are poorly equipped to serve multimodal trips. This is demonstrated by a high
rate of bicycle and pedestrian crashes on some intersecting roadways”
“The report concludes that the full length of I-94 within the program area, one interchange (I-94 and TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue),
and eighteen intersecting street segments have a demonstrated crash problem. The prevalence of a crash
rate exceeding the critical rate along the entirety of the program is a key safety concern identified in
the report.”
In summary – they realize I94 will need significant investment in infrastructure in the next 20 years. They want a new I94 that is safer and helps address the demand for walking and biking. I don’t think they’re going to solve the inconsistencies in travel time except to slow all the travel time down.
Now, if you had to rank the options based on these goals what order would you choose?