Interstate 94 between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul is an urban transportation nightmare from which its neighbors are struggling to wake up. Thankfully, the Biden administration has launched a new grant program to mitigate harms from transportation infrastructure, including highways. The Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program appears tailor-made to help the Twin Cities design a fix to our freeway problem.
Timing is critical. To be considered for a grant, Minneapolis and St. Paul officials must apply by Oct. 13 – a mere month away. Plus, the 7.5 mile section of I-94 between downtowns is set to be rebuilt in the next few years. This project will establish the future of the corridor for the next half-century. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is already considering various design alternatives that the public has yet to see.
The I-94 project corridor spans Minneapolis and St. Paul, but so far the two cities are refusing to work together to submit a coordinated planning proposal to address the entire project area.
Highways are a rural transportation strategy that should never have been built within city limits. Top-tier cities across North America and around the world are realizing that urban highways don’t work and are successfully removing them. Yet many of us seem complacent about our highway. For any Twin Citian younger than 50, I-94 has simply always been there, along with its pollution, noise, danger and disconnection.
However, just because people are accustomed to I-94 doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or a permanent feature. But highway departments do highways. Without intervention, we should prepare to see plans for more lanes tearing through mostly disinvested neighborhoods with bigger ramps and more complicated exchanges. Maybe a smattering of trees, public art or a new bike or carpool lane will be pitched to make the expansion seem “equitable, green and welcoming.”
Two community-based advocacy campaigns have emerged to influence the outcome of the highway project. Both groups’ fundamental goals are worthy, and the tactics and outcomes of their ideas should be determined with the help of a jointly-submitted planning proposal.
ReConnect Rondo (RCR) is a group of Black leaders working with MnDOT, elected officials and neighborhood institutions to capitalize upon the I-94 project to revitalize Rondo, St. Paul’s historically Black community that was physically and economically torn apart by the highway, harming generations of residents. RCR’s proposal currently centers on building a developed bridge over two to three blocks of a rebuilt highway. Their focus is limited in scope to the Rondo neighborhood but their fundamental purpose is essential. Restitution for Rondo descendants and physical reconnection for current residents are vitally important. Ideally, with the assistance of the federal grant their proposed solution could be revised to also solve the highway’s terrible pollution and health impacts on the Rondo community – things that a lid would not address.
A different group composed of transportation, neighborhood, climate justice and health advocacy organizations and coordinated by Our Streets Minneapolis is focused on repairing harms along the entire 7.5 mile stretch of I-94. They’ve proposed replacing the highway with the Twin Cities Boulevard – filling in the gaping trench and reconnecting surrounding communities with dedicated transit, bicycle and slower-speed traffic lanes in addition to new affordable, anti-displacement housing, business space and parkland. The initial Twin Cities Boulevard schematics – not pie-in-the-sky but vetted by a transportation engineer with experience replacing highways – show a green ribbon linking both cities and all adjacent neighborhoods, lined with the vitality of thousands of new homes and businesses where today the highway torments its neighbors.
[image_caption]Mary Morse Marti[/image_caption]
But waiting, in this case, is far from respectful. It means forfeiting the chance for critical, corridor-wide planning activities and true reparative justice for the entire project corridor. The thousands of Minneapolis and St. Paul residents who live outside the proposed land bridge area will continue to be subjected to the highway’s air and noise pollution, health impacts, traffic and disconnection. These people, who are disproportionately low-income and people of color, will be further marginalized.
The harms of I-94 must be analyzed as a continuum and not as a localized problem. This year’s federal planning grant funding is ample. It can and should be proposed and shared between Minneapolis and St. Paul for a coordinated community and engineering review that answers important questions about both community-based proposals. Twin Cities transportation leaders can and must work together toward a healthy, connected community the full length of the I-94 project area.
Mary Morse Marti is the former executive director of Move Minneapolis, an original founder of HOURCAR.
“Highways are a rural transportation strategy that should never have been built within city limits. Top-tier cities across North America and around the world are realizing that urban highways don’t work and are successfully removing them. Yet many of us seem complacent about our highway.”
I couldn’t agree more, especially after a summer of auto travel to other states with cities that don’t have one or more interstates carving them up into pieces. While I’m not especially enthused about building what is, in essence, a bridge over the existing interstate, the idea of removing the highway altogether in order to stitch back together what was apparently a fully-functional neighborhood is an appealing one. Indeed, nothing about I-94’s placement through Minneapolis and St. Paul should be regarded as permanent, or in some cases, even useful.
I agree, the freeways shouldn’t have gone into the hearts of downtowns. But why compound that mistake by building a land bridge to create a future maintenance problem, to make expensive new land where conventional land is far cheaper, and to make a gesture of regret for a lost neighborhood that cannot be brought back? Surely there are better potential uses for that federal money.
The obvious present-day I-94 problems are the afternoon congestion east of the Lowry Hill tunnel, and the nasty spaghetti mess in downtown St. Paul, for which I have no suggested solutions.
I think major metro highways had there need when people were forced to commute to centralized locations. That is over over for people who don’t want that lifestyle and workers are more free than ever to remote or hybrid. Between MSP and STP, I would start over and just remove 94 all together and accept three directional access to each city. Also take out 280 as it’s not needed without 94.
It a poor comparison because of scale, but the idea of a central London area void of major highways would be nice. In London the A4 on the west side connects to government and the A13 on the east connecting to Canery Warf, business, in between is the transit.
Oh, my goodness. Where is all the traffic going to go?
All major cities have interstates going through them.
“Highways are a rural transportation strategy that should never have been built within city limits. Top-tier cities across North America and around the world are realizing that urban highways don’t work and are successfully removing them. Yet many of us seem complacent about our highway.”
A nice thought but I just don’t get it: we have built civic amenities like stadiums, arenas and parks within the downtown limits in addition to the long established shopping and dining. Downtown is not just a neighborhood for the folks who live there. It is the social and economic focal point for a region with a 500 mile radius. When I grew up in South Minneapolis a trip downtown was on Lyndale or Nicollet. From the West, a stop light filled, 35mph Wayzata Blvd. The now 20 minute trip from Wayzata to downtown returns to 50 minutes. Is that just the “new” reality that must be accepted? I accept the reality of SWLRT and see its’ need. I struggle a little more with very aesthetic grand boulevards tripling the time to get from A to B.
Who / where are these “top tier” cities? Alluding to them and not referencing any is not very helpful to the argument…
Except the SWLRT is not non stop and it won’t save much time. Add to it, you now have more congestion near the light rail sites in what were quiet or quieter areas for the most part. Many of the suburbs have freeway entrances and exits that are a bit removed from the main part of the city and have trees, greenery to soften the appearance and lower the noise. The twin cities over built freeways–does one city or suburb really need 3-4 major freeways running through or nearby. But then you go back to traffic in residential neighborhoods or better design of what you put in downtown–as was mentioned no stadiums, limited traffic. The idea of limiting traffic near some of the lakes awhile back brought backlash from people, especially those who argued it limited some from access. For the most part the Twin Cities’ development has been driven by business needs and is messy.
More left wing pipe dreams that will never amount to anything except paying ridiculous amounts of money to consultants to come up with useless plans, instead of using that cash to build desperately needed low income housing.
Examples of “top tier” cities include San Francisco and Seoul. Info can be found on this page. https://www.twincitiesboulevard.org/learn-more/highway-to-boulevard-examples
Traffic is not water – people make different choices in response to the availability of highways and the number of lanes on highways. There is induced demand from creating more capacity on highways, and there is traffic evaporation when highways are removed. More info here: https://www.twincitiesboulevard.org/learn-more/frequently-asked-questions
The examples here do not address a freeway accessing into a city, only what happens after you get there. The Rochester inner loop was the equivalent of 494 moving into a circle encompassing Hennepin to Cedar and Lake Street to Broadway: just goofy and I had driven it several times. The Embarcadero likewise. Each of these cities has a 35w equivalent getting you into the center city.
Reconnecting neighborhoods that never should have been sliced in half – especially Rondo – via land bridges is a great idea with few downsides and should be a top priority for any 94 construction. It might a traffic headache in the short-term, but the benefits are there. Easier access to more grocery stores and retail, schools, pharmacy/medical services, recreational activities, and housing without having to use the freeway or travel out of the way to cross it. Reconnection via large land bridges also present opportunities for those opening new business to reach and serve more customers.
Since the section of 94 connecting the two downtowns is set to be redone in the next few years, now is the time. They can tunnel down during the stretch that will serve the land bridges. Once complete the reconnected neighborhoods will provide Metro Transit with the ability to serve more routes.