Interstate 94

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 857
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Interstate 94

Postby LakeCharles » December 22nd, 2020, 3:35 pm

Was planning to stay out because everyone knows my opinion on this, but then people started to put words in the mouths of us suburban conservatives.
But in this case, you are basically saying that you are happy for taxpayer money to fund the things you personally want (such as removing large amounts of land from taxrolls so you can drive faster) just not to pay for the things you don't personally want (which you label "waste and bloat"). That's not exactly fiscal conservatism.

tmart
Rice Park
Posts: 403
Joined: October 6th, 2017, 10:05 am
Location: Expat

Re: Interstate 94

Postby tmart » December 22nd, 2020, 3:39 pm

Was planning to stay out because everyone knows my opinion on this, but then people started to put words in the mouths of us suburban conservatives.
My goal wasn't to put words in your mouth at all, and I'm sorry it came across that way. It's frustrating to see outstate reps bash any and every expenditure within the city limits, but that doesn't mean suburban conservatives are the same way, nor do I think conservatives are blanket opposed to all public spending.

I'd like to think pursuing efficient, cost-effective solutions is something that could be a winner across the spectrum. It seems to contribute to the conservative goal of reducing wasteful spending; alternatively, from the left it means more cash available for more expansive infrastructure investments, or new social services, or what have you. Regardless of your end goals I would think they are easier to achieve if revenue is high and costs are low.

How this relates to I-94 is that urban highways are very expensive, both in terms of capital and maintenance expenditures, and in terms of opportunity costs in the surrounding land. We should be rigorous about ensuring the mobility gains are big enough to justify those very high costs. My hypothesis is that they are not, especially because the bottleneck exits perform poorly at peak times. But it's hard to say for certain if we never do a serious comparative study.

Tom H.
Rice Park
Posts: 433
Joined: September 4th, 2012, 5:23 am

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Tom H. » December 22nd, 2020, 3:51 pm

As an actual fiscal conservative, I don't like the idea of being stuck on nightmarish traffic choked arterials with dozens of signals on my drive between downtown.
Not trying to be rude or anything, but I don't think the first and second halves of this sentence have anything to do with one another. In fact, they may be opposed.

Mdcastle
Foshay Tower
Posts: 868
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Mdcastle » December 22nd, 2020, 4:03 pm

Conservatism, even fiscal conservatism doesn't mean don't spend government money on anything more any more than liberalism equals the government takes control of everything in full blown socialism / communism. I can't go out and buy streets, roads, and freeways, so it's the role of the government to spend money on that, just like I can't buy police and a criminals justice system to keep me safe from criminals, a fire department to keep me safe from fires, or a military to keep me safe from terrorists and foreign invaders. So I rely on government for those.

By contrast I as an individual rather than the whole can pay for my own food, clothing, healthcare, and housing

Gman12
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 124
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 12:35 pm
Location: Capital of the North

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Gman12 » December 22nd, 2020, 4:23 pm

Conservatism, even fiscal conservatism doesn't mean don't spend government money on anything more any more than liberalism equals the government takes control of everything in full blown socialism / communism. I can't go out and buy streets, roads, and freeways, so it's the role of the government to spend money on that, just like I can't buy police and a criminals justice system to keep me safe from criminals, a fire department to keep me safe from fires, or a military to keep me safe from terrorists and foreign invaders. So I rely on government for those.

By contrast I as an individual rather than the whole can pay for my own food, clothing, healthcare, and housing
What about the 10's of millions of our citizens that live in poverty that can't afford the basics? Does that bother you at all?

Mdcastle
Foshay Tower
Posts: 868
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Mdcastle » December 22nd, 2020, 4:33 pm

Yes it does, that's why I donate to charity. I would donate even more if the government hadn't decided to get all bloated and take over much of the role of charity and decide how my "donations' will be redistributed to those in poverty.

Gman12
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 124
Joined: May 16th, 2013, 12:35 pm
Location: Capital of the North

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Gman12 » December 22nd, 2020, 4:37 pm

As an actual fiscal conservative, I don't like the idea of being stuck on nightmarish traffic choked arterials with dozens of signals on my drive between downtown. If we cut out government waste and bloat we can still afford nice things like assuring mobility for people in society.
The affordability argument only works if the U.S. had a budget and consequences for failing to meet it. Fiscal conservatives are worried about a problem that doesn't exist. Any country stupid enough to call the debt would be digging their own grave, so we'll continue to print money to prop up the stock market and military industrial complex.

-Former fiscal conservative

User avatar
nBode
Union Depot
Posts: 338
Joined: August 20th, 2013, 3:25 pm
Location: University of Minnesota

Re: Interstate 94

Postby nBode » December 23rd, 2020, 5:51 am

one day people look around and see that its no longer needed/gone in its current state.
What I was trying to highlight (because I think it's not really thought about) was that this sort of solution is tailored entirely for the current generation—it's saying "How can we compromise so that these current people accept it?" but I think it's more realistic to realize that if we tear down I-94 tomorrow, we don't have to wait for a hypothetical "one day" in which people realize that things are okay without it. That hypothetical is just the next generation. For them, there would be no such thing as I-94 (from MPLS to STP) and almost nobody would consider it.

It would be like I-335, which was planned to connect 35 and 94 through Northeast. I doubt many people even know about that project, or ever think "I wish there was a freeway through Northeast so I could drive to Rosedale from Golden Valley a few minutes faster. In the reality we were born into, I-335 doesn't exist, and nobody cares. We get around regardless. If we tore down I-94 tomorrow it would be basically the same for future generations (maybe they would have some of us as grumpy grandparents complaining about "good ole I-94" but that's about it).

The broad point is just that it's very shortsighted to frame this discussion with how to get current people to accept it. That's super short-sighted for something which will impact the next dozen generations. We should think about their realities, not ours.

uptownbro
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 118
Joined: February 10th, 2020, 11:00 pm

Re: Interstate 94

Postby uptownbro » December 23rd, 2020, 9:26 am

Just to be that guy yes the debt can be a problem. The issue isnt tied to a single nation calling the debt but rather if inflation rates are able to exceed interest rates. If the opposite occurs the govt could have a major fiscal crisis as it cant devalue its debt. Excessive spending is a talking point.
I dont disagree with the idea of planning for the future generations but I still contend you have to deal with peoples current reality. Its great to plan for future generations but it doesnt matter if people currently are unwilling to accept it and begin implementation of it.

alexschief
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 720
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Interstate 94

Postby alexschief » December 23rd, 2020, 9:46 am

Back on the issue of highways, I think one of the key things to keep pointing out about I-94 between the downtowns is that a huge portion of that traffic is local traffic, and another huge portion is interstate traffic that just didn't get the memo about taking the ring road. The section of the highway that we are talking about is not a highway that directly serves any suburb. If it were to close tomorrow, it would still be abundantly easy to get to downtown Minneapolis thanks to I-35W (from the south and the northeast), I-394 (from the west), and I-94 (from the northwest). It would be just as easy to get into downtown St. Paul thanks to I-35E (from the southwest and north) and I-94 (from the east). Nobody is even discussing removing these highways.

If I were to rank MSP highway removal projects in order of lack of transportation impact, I'd put the North Loop Viaducts first and Ayd Mill Road second. What comes third? Probably the crosstown section of I-94! You could still stub-end every other highway into the downtowns and maintain that great vehicular access (not to mention a number of BRT lines). The value of the land you would recover, especially in both downtowns and near the University, would be significant. There would be significant gains to equity in St. Paul especially.

I think most of us agree that the most disappointing part of the "Rethinking" I-94 project is how little it is willing to rethink. The first step is actually getting removal to be an alternative that is studied. Once it is studied, then we can actually put numbers to these questions. What would the traffic impacts be? We can model that. What would the value of the recovered land be? We can estimate that. What would the impacts be in terms of air pollution and carbon emissions? We can project that.

Anyway, to sum up, there would be costs and benefits to removing I-94 and it would be helpful to be able to quantify them. But I think we can say with some confidence that this segment of the highway is not some kind of keystone to regional mobility, it's actually probably the piece of the interstate system in MSP that has the least transportation need and certainly the one with the highest social costs.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2370
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Interstate 94

Postby EOst » December 23rd, 2020, 10:27 am

It would be like I-335, which was planned to connect 35 and 94 through Northeast. I doubt many people even know about that project, or ever think "I wish there was a freeway through Northeast so I could drive to Rosedale from Golden Valley a few minutes faster.
I certainly don't actually wish 335 had been built, but as someone near the Highway 36 corridor who goes to the west metro fairly regularly, I wish there were a better way around downtown Minneapolis on the north side literally every time I drive through.

Trademark
City Center
Posts: 38
Joined: March 31st, 2019, 11:22 am

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Trademark » December 23rd, 2020, 10:56 am

It would be like I-335, which was planned to connect 35 and 94 through Northeast. I doubt many people even know about that project, or ever think "I wish there was a freeway through Northeast so I could drive to Rosedale from Golden Valley a few minutes faster.
I certainly don't actually wish 335 had been built, but as someone near the Highway 36 corridor who goes to the west metro fairly regularly, I wish there were a better way around downtown Minneapolis on the north side literally every time I drive through.
I do wish it was built because it's a major middle finger for people who had their houses tore down and were forced to move only for no project to take place. The right of way was aquired the impacts were felt. No benefit was there. Plus if 335 was built it would an easier argument for 94 to be closed easier as traffic could be routed through 36. With something like the 4th street ramp serving downtown Minneapolis traffic along with 35w. At the very least we could calm a lot of that section as all cross metro traffic doesn't have to go through the lowry tunnel and the 35w/94 commons. Thereby worseing pollution in the area.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1849
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Interstate 94

Postby amiller92 » December 23rd, 2020, 11:24 am

Conservatism, even fiscal conservatism doesn't mean don't spend government money on anything more any more than liberalism equals the government takes control of everything in full blown socialism / communism. I can't go out and buy streets, roads, and freeways, so it's the role of the government to spend money on that, just like I can't buy police and a criminals justice system to keep me safe from criminals, a fire department to keep me safe from fires, or a military to keep me safe from terrorists and foreign invaders. So I rely on government for those.

By contrast I as an individual rather than the whole can pay for my own food, clothing, healthcare, and housing
Off topic, but unless you're paying for your health care entirely out of pocket (and even not then), you aren't paying for your own health care, you're pooling your money with others to cover the group's health care plus the insurance company's profits.

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 851
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Interstate 94

Postby DanPatchToget » December 23rd, 2020, 11:45 am

It would be like I-335, which was planned to connect 35 and 94 through Northeast. I doubt many people even know about that project, or ever think "I wish there was a freeway through Northeast so I could drive to Rosedale from Golden Valley a few minutes faster.
I certainly don't actually wish 335 had been built, but as someone near the Highway 36 corridor who goes to the west metro fairly regularly, I wish there were a better way around downtown Minneapolis on the north side literally every time I drive through.
I do wish it was built because it's a major middle finger for people who had their houses tore down and were forced to move only for no project to take place. The right of way was aquired the impacts were felt. No benefit was there. Plus if 335 was built it would an easier argument for 94 to be closed easier as traffic could be routed through 36. With something like the 4th street ramp serving downtown Minneapolis traffic along with 35w. At the very least we could calm a lot of that section as all cross metro traffic doesn't have to go through the lowry tunnel and the 35w/94 commons. Thereby worseing pollution in the area.
If I-335 were to be half-completed and then cancelled maybe I would agree with your statement, but that wasn't the case. Weren't homes rebuilt on the right-of-way?

As for thinking that I-335 would build a stronger case for 94 to be closed, I highly doubt it. I think we would still be where we are today in which closing I-94 isn't remotely considered by MnDOT, but in that alternate timeline a big chunk of Northeast including Boom Island and Nicollet Island would be ruined.

Trademark
City Center
Posts: 38
Joined: March 31st, 2019, 11:22 am

Re: Interstate 94

Postby Trademark » December 23rd, 2020, 12:27 pm


I certainly don't actually wish 335 had been built, but as someone near the Highway 36 corridor who goes to the west metro fairly regularly, I wish there were a better way around downtown Minneapolis on the north side literally every time I drive through.
I do wish it was built because it's a major middle finger for people who had their houses tore down and were forced to move only for no project to take place. The right of way was aquired the impacts were felt. No benefit was there. Plus if 335 was built it would an easier argument for 94 to be closed easier as traffic could be routed through 36. With something like the 4th street ramp serving downtown Minneapolis traffic along with 35w. At the very least we could calm a lot of that section as all cross metro traffic doesn't have to go through the lowry tunnel and the 35w/94 commons. Thereby worseing pollution in the area.
If I-335 were to be half-completed and then cancelled maybe I would agree with your statement, but that wasn't the case. Weren't homes rebuilt on the right-of-way?

As for thinking that I-335 would build a stronger case for 94 to be closed, I highly doubt it. I think we would still be where we are today in which closing I-94 isn't remotely considered by MnDOT, but in that alternate timeline a big chunk of Northeast including Boom Island and Nicollet Island would be ruined.
I'm not saying it should be built today. But the fact that they rebuilt those houses means nothing for thosr displaced for nothing.

Just like I wish 94 was built on pierce butler and not through the rondo neighborhood but moving it there today. Isn't something I advocate

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 851
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Interstate 94

Postby DanPatchToget » December 23rd, 2020, 2:46 pm



I do wish it was built because it's a major middle finger for people who had their houses tore down and were forced to move only for no project to take place. The right of way was aquired the impacts were felt. No benefit was there. Plus if 335 was built it would an easier argument for 94 to be closed easier as traffic could be routed through 36. With something like the 4th street ramp serving downtown Minneapolis traffic along with 35w. At the very least we could calm a lot of that section as all cross metro traffic doesn't have to go through the lowry tunnel and the 35w/94 commons. Thereby worseing pollution in the area.
If I-335 were to be half-completed and then cancelled maybe I would agree with your statement, but that wasn't the case. Weren't homes rebuilt on the right-of-way?

As for thinking that I-335 would build a stronger case for 94 to be closed, I highly doubt it. I think we would still be where we are today in which closing I-94 isn't remotely considered by MnDOT, but in that alternate timeline a big chunk of Northeast including Boom Island and Nicollet Island would be ruined.
I'm not saying it should be built today. But the fact that they rebuilt those houses means nothing for thosr displaced for nothing.

Just like I wish 94 was built on pierce butler and not through the rondo neighborhood but moving it there today. Isn't something I advocate
I'm saying if I-335 went through in the 70s as originally planned I don't think it would help make a case for removing I-94 between the two downtowns in the present.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests