Interstate 94

[Silophant]

Yeah, I can't imagine why we would entirely fill in an existing grade separated transportation route in order to build an at-grade transit route on top.

[Trademark]

Yeah, I can't imagine why we would entirely fill in an existing grade separated transportation route in order to build an at-grade transit route on top.

Especially when we have an at-grade transit route just blocks north for most of the way.

[bubzki2]

My reading of this concept is more to anchor this in people's minds what is theoretically possible and just to draw attention to this rethinking I-94 project in general. Later on I would expect a compromise that still includes a freeway/highway, but a far more multi-modal and less car-dominated corridor to go with it.

Either way this goes, this is the type of opportunity that won't soon come around again.

[MNdible]

That may be true, but the DFL doesn't have to do anything to get that treatment. The GOP is perfectly capable of making up and getting people angry about imaginary things, so not making positive changes out of fear of GOP backlash is a losing game we should largely ignore.

Most voters (or at least enough of them) seem capable of seeing through empty GOP talking points. This would be a real thing that to almost all outstate and suburban voters (along with many inner city voters) would read as spending a lot of money to rip out a critical piece of state transportation infrastructure. I can see the political ads now.

[alexschief]

Boy, worrying that people in Detroit Lakes will disapprove is just about the worst justification I've ever heard for another half century of air pollution, dangerous roads, and segmented communities in St. Paul.

[DanPatchToget]

I feel like anything we do to I-94 outside of the status quo or widening it will be labeled as radical by the GOP.

[VacantLuxuries]

Most voters (or at least enough of them) seem capable of seeing through empty GOP talking points.

You're more optimistic than I am. Or we've been watching different school board meetings.

This would be a real thing that to almost all outstate and suburban voters (along with many inner city voters) would read as spending a lot of money to rip out a critical piece of state transportation infrastructure. I can see the political ads now.

If it's the same voters who comment on every Strib article about how the cities are crime-ridden hell holes, why would they care about I-94? If we were talking tearing up 694/494 to force those outstate/suburban people to drive through the heart of the city, I could see some justification.

If they're simultaneously too afraid to go downtown and yet super invested in whether I94 continues to exist, they're just not rational people. We're never going to logic them out of viewpoints they didn't logic themselves into and the biggest disappointments of the DFL/DNC are when we pre-emptively try to moderate to a middle ground that will be rejected as 'communist' on arrival anyway.

[hoffm83n]

Twin Cities Boulevard https://www.twincitiesboulevard.org/ through Our Streets Minneapolis has gone live. I was hoping for more renderings/visualizations, but it's interesting food for thought vis a vis the Rethinking I-94 project.

If this goes through then 6-laning both 36 from 35W to 35E and 694 from 35W to 94 becomes a necessity. Also they should look into decreasing access on 36 by cutting out the Fairview and Hamline exits, and upgrading it to interstate standards. Rosedale mall will still have good access from Snelling to B2.

that would be an absolute cluster around rosedale. they would have to knock down a bunch of houses on the ne corner of snelling/b2 to prevent queuing that would interfere with snelling/36. also seize land to remove the roundabout at snelling/36

if they're not going to have any radical change on 94 i would like them to seriously rethink the merge from north cretin to west 94 especially if st thomas is going to purchase the country club and build larger athletic facilities.

[thespeedmccool]

Voters are dumb. Something like this, no matter how justified, would get the perpetrators skewered at the polls.

The suggestion that it would be Detroit Lakes residents who would be the ones to worry about is flat wrong. Suburbanites are urban-skeptic by nature and would probably rise up in revolt if their downtown commutes got even a minute longer ("I swear my commute is 20 minutes longer now!") That doesn't justify the harm that's been done by the highways, but it does support the notion that this would be politcal armageddon for the DFL. If Walz so much as signalled support for a single stoplight on 94, he'd get smoked in the suburbs.

This isn't even just an ambitious turnback proposal, it's a ridiculous grabbag of progressive policy goals that couldn't be assembled in even the most liberal states and cities in America. Zero-fare transit? Bike highways? A co-op land trust? Talk about infeasible. Our Streets just lost a lot of its reputation for supporting pragmatic reform, in my mind. No matter how much I or anyoe supports any of these things individually, proposing this as a package is such an inept move politically -- MNDOT won't even look at it. Our Streets just made themselves completely toxic to statewide leaders; they're no longer pragmatic progressives that the DFL can defend, but those crazy lefty socialists who hate the 'burbs. I really hope this doesn't singal the George Floyd Square-ification of activism -- that is, demanding a laundry list of things so bold that you'll get laughed out the room and achieve nothing. I can see the GOP press release already: "DFL-aligned socialists propose lengthening commutes by demolishing I-94."

This is a fun graphic design project for an intern and nothing more, unfortunately. Let's focus our efforts on turnbacks and caps that will be viable in our lifetimes, like Olson Highway, the 394 stub, and Rondo.

[Didier]

I still contend that there are large swaths of 94 that wouldn't greatly benefit from being connected, especially for what it'd cost. It's really not until you get east of Lexington that you start to have neighborhoods on both sides of the highway.

[bubzki2]

Does this site have a poll function? I'm genuinely curious to compare the takes of this (self-selected) group on what they'd like to see for the intra-city I-94 corridor, and compare with the voters' zip code (i.e., proximity to I-94).

[Didier]

I lived in the Prospect Park area for about a decade, so in the shadow of 94.

In a perfect world the highway wouldn't be there, but the build environment surrounding 94 has developed in weird ways that wouldn't be easy to reconnect.

From a logistical standpoint, reconnecting south Minneapolis over 35W would be much simpler. That highway is basically a straight line parallel to an existing grid of residential neighborhoods. 94 is curvy with a parallel train track, large stretches of heavy industry on one side, etc.

[Anondson]

Strib on MNDOT’s 10 designs

https://www.startribune.com/interstate- ... 600290342/

[thespeedmccool]

I saw some folks discussing an important point about Rethinking 94 that I hadn't considered yet: if a "Twin Cities Boulevard" conversion is the way this goes (which I think is a low-likelihood anyway,) it could actually be worse for the urban fabric than a freeway.

Think of how huge a barrier Hiawatha is in South Minneapolis; it's awful. It's no more easily crossed for pedestrians than a freeway, no less noisy or polluting than most freeways, and is worse for drivers. Vis-a-vis a freeway, I'd argue that Hiawatha doesn't really serve anyone any better and actually serves many users worse.

And let's not pretend that MNDOT would build a landscaped "boulevard" like activists are envisioning. They would build a stinky, loud, Hiawatha-esque stroad with lackluster "transit options" and abysmal pedestrian and cycling accommodations. Maybe a stroad instead of a freeway would reduce VMT, but in all likelihood, it would just push drivers to 62 or 36 and burn gobs of political capital for the DFL in the process.

Seems like a huge mistake to remove the freeway. This isn't some seldom-used and never-finished stretch of derelict pavement like many previous removals, but a political blunder being pushed by broadly unreasonable "community stakeholders" that - let's face it - probably don't represent even a third of Minnesotans and likely less than half of St. Paulites. It's too bad, but it's the reality we live in: the toothpaste is out on freeways, and good luck stuffing it back in the tube.

I think the best way forward is BRT on 94 with no expansion. Anything more ambitious is probably not going to happen and probably a mistake.

[Bakken2016]

I saw some folks discussing an important point about Rethinking 94 that I hadn't considered yet: if a "Twin Cities Boulevard" conversion is the way this goes (which I think is a low-likelihood anyway,) it could actually be worse for the urban fabric than a freeway.

Think of how huge a barrier Hiawatha is in South Minneapolis; it's awful. It's no more easily crossed for pedestrians than a freeway, no less noisy or polluting than most freeways, and is worse for drivers. Vis-a-vis a freeway, I'd argue that Hiawatha doesn't really serve anyone any better and actually serves many users worse.

And let's not pretend that MNDOT would build a landscaped "boulevard" like activists are envisioning. They would build a stinky, loud, Hiawatha-esque stroad with lackluster "transit options" and abysmal pedestrian and cycling accommodations. Maybe a stroad instead of a freeway would reduce VMT, but in all likelihood, it would just push drivers to 62 or 36 and burn gobs of political capital for the DFL in the process.

Seems like a huge mistake to remove the freeway. This isn't some seldom-used and never-finished stretch of derelict pavement like many previous removals, but a political blunder being pushed by broadly unreasonable "community stakeholders" that - let's face it - probably don't represent even a third of Minnesotans and likely less than half of St. Paulites. It's too bad, but it's the reality we live in: the toothpaste is out on freeways, and good luck stuffing it back in the tube.

I think the best way forward is BRT on 94 with no expansion. Anything more ambitious is probably not going to happen and probably a mistake.

The activists calling for rail along 94 are just not grounded in reality. There is no way we are going to build rail when the Green Line is 2 blocks north of the free way. BRT and Express service in dedicated transit only lanes is the way to go here.

[Silophant]

Right, the absolute best case scenario for the at-grade proposals they showed is basically Olson Memorial Highway, but it's more likely to be Hiawatha with no Lake or Franklin overpasses.

I really like the Local/Regional concept. Assuming that the local two-way streets shown are the currently-existing frontage roads (where they exist), and aren't an extra parallel set of surface streets for some reason, two lanes and a bus lane/shoulder per direction would take up about 80' in the center of the corridor, freeing up 50'-90' development lots between the frontage road and the new freeway trench, assuming retaining walls are put in. With no more on- or off-ramps, there's no more conflict points between local street users and high-speed freeway traffic, and the now through-only freeway traffic is ripe for shunting over to 694 so the grade-separated center of the corridor can be used for an intercity rail connection between the downtowns or something.

[BigIdeasGuy]

I get why LRT isn't going to happen because of the Green Line argument, I just think it's dumb. Who cares that two lines run parallel close to each other? They serve 2 very different purposes, 1 local 1 express, and there is benefit in that.

I really don't find the regional equity argument compelling either, this is literally a generational opportunity to invest in additional transit at a price and ease that is going to be much lower on per mile basis than any other potential LRT line we can imagine.

If leaders can find justification for the $290 million Gold Line for 6500 daily riders they can certainly find justification for an express Green Line. They said they don't have all the answers today but it sure seems like it when it comes to this one

[DanPatchToget]

My thoughts on each option:

At-Grade A: Looks good, though there would need to be a lot of thought put into making sure traffic goes a safe speed for pedestrians crossing at intersections. If they choose this option I hope BRT would get signal preemption (a step above signal priority).

At-Grade B: Also good, but I think BRT is better in the center of the road so buses don't have to deal with right turning traffic.

Local/Regional Roadways: Potentially a good compromise for those who want the freeway removed and those who want to keep the freeway, but the local roads need to be designed to calm traffic way the hell down so motorists getting off the freeway don't think they're still on it.

Reduced Freeway: Besides the "managed lane" it looks pretty much like what it is now, so thumbs down.

Reconfigure Freeway: No.

Expanded Freeway A: Ridiculous.

Expanded Freeway B: Utterly insane. Keep that stuff in Houston and Los Angeles.

For the at-grade options, couldn't the road stay in the trench and go up to the same elevation as the north-south streets at intersections, or are they thinking most or all of the north-south grid would connect to the road and that's why the trench would be filled?

Regarding rail along the freeway corridor, it would be nice as part of a regional/intercity rail system, but it would be difficult to route it to St. Paul Union Depot and Target Field Station. In addition the existing rail corridors between Minneapolis and St. Paul have room for additional tracks (CP's Merriam Park Subdivision used to be double-track, and BNSF's Midway Subdivision at one time had double-track for freight trains plus double-track for passenger trains), so I don't think it's a huge loss not to have rail as part of the Rethinking I-94 project.

Are they not considering freeway caps, or is that a separate project that's on pause until they decide what to do with I-94? If these urban freeways are staying then at least cap them. More land becomes available for green space and development, the freeway is less of a barrier for people on foot and bike, locals don't have to see and hear it everyday, and motorists keep their freeway. Seems like a win for everyone. I remember being in Amsterdam surrounded by parkland, and when I looked at Google Maps I realized there's a freeway the size of I-94 right underneath my feet. The freeway is capped for such a long distance you can't even tell there is one.

[SurlyLHT]

My thoughts on each option:

At-Grade A: Looks good, though there would need to be a lot of thought put into making sure traffic goes a safe speed for pedestrians crossing at intersections. If they choose this option I hope BRT would get signal preemption (a step above signal priority).

At-Grade B: Also good, but I think BRT is better in the center of the road so buses don't have to deal with right turning traffic.

Local/Regional Roadways: Potentially a good compromise for those who want the freeway removed and those who want to keep the freeway, but the local roads need to be designed to calm traffic way the hell down so motorists getting off the freeway don't think they're still on it.

Reduced Freeway: Besides the "managed lane" it looks pretty much like what it is now, so thumbs down.

Reconfigure Freeway: No.

Expanded Freeway A: Ridiculous.

Expanded Freeway B: Utterly insane. Keep that stuff in Houston and Los Angeles.

For the at-grade options, couldn't the road stay in the trench and go up to the same elevation as the north-south streets at intersections, or are they thinking most or all of the north-south grid would connect to the road and that's why the trench would be filled?

Regarding rail along the freeway corridor, it would be nice as part of a regional/intercity rail system, but it would be difficult to route it to St. Paul Union Depot and Target Field Station. In addition the existing rail corridors between Minneapolis and St. Paul have room for additional tracks (CP's Merriam Park Subdivision used to be double-track, and BNSF's Midway Subdivision at one time had double-track for freight trains plus double-track for passenger trains), so I don't think it's a huge loss not to have rail as part of the Rethinking I-94 project.

Are they not considering freeway caps, or is that a separate project that's on pause until they decide what to do with I-94? If these urban freeways are staying then at least cap them. More land becomes available for green space and development, the freeway is less of a barrier for people on foot and bike, locals don't have to see and hear it everyday, and motorists keep their freeway. Seems like a win for everyone. I remember being in Amsterdam surrounded by parkland, and when I looked at Google Maps I realized there's a freeway the size of I-94 right underneath my feet. The freeway is capped for such a long distance you can't even tell there is one.

I like the idea of it staying in the trench. If we had an "At Grade" option, but in the trench I think it would be easier to build and expand connections over the trench versus turning it into Hiawatha or 55. I would also like to see along north/south roads expanded bridges with structures whether residential or commercial on top of them. Or at the very least more done to make the connection across the freeway feel more seemleess.

Part of the difficulty here is St Paul. The city has really busy north/south roads and is just very car-centric in general. Compare 94 and LaSalle in Mpls to 94 and Pascal in St Paul in Google Streetview.

From looking at Google I also don't get why MnDot's documents don't show all the greenspace in the trench. If they took away some ramps more of this could be freed up and perhaps buildings could be built in it facing St. Anthony and Concordia.

[bubzki2]

Just because MnDOT is showing "at-grade" to look like Hiawatha, doesn't mean that's the actual, good-faith best realistic scenario for the boulevard. Crossing distances would be a fraction of what they are now for bike/ped, and the roadway being narrowed would allow potentially hundreds of prime acres to be freed up for development. A good faith representation of at-grade would be far more appealing than the bland, almost stroad-like rendering that MnDOT seems to be peddling.