Interstate 94

[Tom H.]

Strib op-ed from a few days ago - look at the 2nd one down by Thomas Fisher. He proposes linking the boulevard-ization of current I-94 with building a new I-94 along Pierce Butler Route, which sounds nice and easy in principle but would easily outstrip SWLRT in terms of largest public works project in state history, not to mention a level of property takings not seen since... well, I-94 was built. But I guess it would solve the intermodal yard problem.

[angrysuburbanite]

Can't highway 280 be used to access 35W from the north?

Fully agree with Multimodal on not having any highways within the 494/694 loop. It's controversial, but part of the solution to reducing VMT, since it makes driving harder, which is something our region is not very good at. It sounds dumb, but making driving harder is part of the solution to encouraging transit and micromobility.

[BigIdeasGuy]

Getting from 52 to 35W is easy part, a quick look at Google Maps it looks like it's mostly industrial properties that would need to be taken with only a few houses around Lexington but once you get the U's Athletic Campus that changes quickly and you are going to have to bulldoze a big section of homes and historic properties in NE until roughly University. It switches back to industrial after that but until you are going to tunnel NE is going to be ruined.

[Wezle]

I really hope that MNDOT tunes out the noise from the Star Tribune comment section and focuses on the oncoming climate crisis caused by our dependency on oil and gas. We are poisoning our planet and the way that we are currently living isn't sustainable forever. Transportation accounts for over 1/4 of our total emissions and a substantial component of microplastic generation.

I know that every person isn't in the place to immediately stop using their car and switch to all sustainable methods of energy use, but unless we find the political will to make some big changes, our kids and grandkids are going to have a lower quality of life than us.

[angrysuburbanite]

Found this somewhat relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54

[Bob Stinson's Ghost]

Found this somewhat relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54

Does freight exist? Does that bed in a box you ordered from Amazon magically coalesce inside the Amazon van when it pulls up in front of your house? Like the transporter in Star Trek?

The guy has some great jargon that he's justifiably proud of, like "highway scars", but I get the impression that he's oblivious to the fact that dense modern cities require hundreds of tons of "stuff" every day. Do "urbanists" think all this cargo should be transported by Peace Coffee style cargo bikes? Or, if we had the means, I suppose we could build Chicago style underground railroad tracks? That would be a project which would dwarf the Big Dig!

And if you like tall buildings, think about the fact that all those green house gas disaster materials they're made of (concrete, steel, and glass) are quite heavy and hauled to the jobsite by various kinds of heavy trucks. A lot of trucks, all diesel powered. Do you really want them all driving around on the surface? Personally I'd rather have them down in a trench or tunnel, away from pedestrians and cyclists.

[Wezle]

I don't think anyone really thinks that. Highways are very useful for moving people and goods outside of cities. However there are world class cities all over the planet without freeways running through their urban centers. Paris and Vancouver are both able to be vibrant, walkable/bikeable places without any real difficulty in acquiring "stuff" while having highways well outside their cores.

Additionally, Minneapolis and St Paul already have several rail yards between the two of them, and plenty more highways than I94, delivering quite a bit of freight. I'm not saying there won't need to be any adjustments made, I just don't think the cost/benefit analysis works out in I94's favor.

[Korh]

Found this somewhat relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54

Does freight exist? Does that bed in a box you ordered from Amazon magically coalesce inside the Amazon van when it pulls up in front of your house? Like the transporter in Star Trek?

The guy has some great jargon that he's justifiably proud of, like "highway scars", but I get the impression that he's oblivious to the fact that dense modern cities require hundreds of tons of "stuff" every day. Do "urbanists" think all this cargo should be transported by Peace Coffee style cargo bikes? Or, if we had the means, I suppose we could build Chicago style underground railroad tracks? That would be a project which would dwarf the Big Dig!

And if you like tall buildings, think about the fact that all those green house gas disaster materials they're made of (concrete, steel, and glass) are quite heavy and hauled to the jobsite by various kinds of heavy trucks. A lot of trucks, all diesel powered. Do you really want them all driving around on the surface? Personally I'd rather have them down in a trench or tunnel, away from pedestrians and cyclists.

Its important to remember many most urbanist youtube channels are hobbyists who have little to no background in the field beyond maybe taking a few courses in college. Don't get me wrong I can think of a few I like and somewhat respect, but some let their subscriber numbers and patron/ad revenue go to there head and start acting like they know best to "fix" stuff (some are borderline bizzarro world O'Toole, where they have pretty much the same tactics and "expertise", but switch there targets around)

I remember watching one that I forced blocked out on youtube after they went on a mini rant about how mountain bikers aren't real cyclists and are far too car brained and will promote dirt trails in the middle of nowhere over actual valuable bicycle infrastructure.

[DanPatchToget]

Found this somewhat relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54

Does freight exist? Does that bed in a box you ordered from Amazon magically coalesce inside the Amazon van when it pulls up in front of your house? Like the transporter in Star Trek?

The guy has some great jargon that he's justifiably proud of, like "highway scars", but I get the impression that he's oblivious to the fact that dense modern cities require hundreds of tons of "stuff" every day. Do "urbanists" think all this cargo should be transported by Peace Coffee style cargo bikes? Or, if we had the means, I suppose we could build Chicago style underground railroad tracks? That would be a project which would dwarf the Big Dig!

And if you like tall buildings, think about the fact that all those green house gas disaster materials they're made of (concrete, steel, and glass) are quite heavy and hauled to the jobsite by various kinds of heavy trucks. A lot of trucks, all diesel powered. Do you really want them all driving around on the surface? Personally I'd rather have them down in a trench or tunnel, away from pedestrians and cyclists.

You make it sound like he's advocating for closing down all roads and banning cars. No one is advocating for that. What is being advocated for is fixing the damage done by highway planners over half a century ago who for some reason believed destroying neighborhoods and forcing everyone to drive was the path our country should take. As Wezle said there's plenty of examples of major metropolitan areas, many of which are bigger than the Twin Cities, that don't have freeways cutting through their urban centers, and their transportation systems function better than ours because they have diverse modes of transportation and aren't heavily dependent on cars.

I don't know Alan Fisher's background, so I won't assume he doesn't have educational and professional experience in transportation planning, and I won't assume the same for other urbanist YouTubers. He has a lot of good ideas that outside the U.S. would be a no brainer, but here we have this mentality that if it doesn't directly benefit drivers then it's a waste of money.

To make this more on topic, I can't see myself supporting something like the Big Dig for I-94 or any of our other urban freeways. Remove it or cap it is what I believe.

[angrysuburbanite]

I mean, he literally calls himself the "armchair urbanist," for what it's worth... I just don't want this to turn into a "bury the freeway" thing and thought this video was pretty good at arguing that. (tangent: the only "urbanist" youtubers I really support are CityNerd (he has a great Twin Cities video I recommend watching) and City Beautiful, both of whom have spent most of their careers in the city planning and engineering fields and know what they are talking about. Channels Not Just Bikes was valuable to introducing people to urbanism, but don't really get into any meaty, productive details other than the Europe good, America bad mentality, and that defeats a lot of progress)

I think that the boulevard, in tandem with a lot of strategic land use planning would work really well from DT St. Paul all the way up until around Snelling, and after that it gets a bit fuzzy. From there to the river, there is very little neighborhood to "reconnect" or develop off of.

I think a lot of the more immediate potential lies around the U of M and Cedar-Riverside district, where there is that messy Cities: Skylines "let's connect every street to the freeway"-style interchange that eats up way too much real estate and fragments the connectivity of the neighborhood. While I understand that it is not going to be removed completely, I would like to see MnDOT reduce the size of this interchange substantially. I also think a short cap over the 35W/94 commons would do wonders as well, though this is out of the scope of this project.

However... I do think the I-94 boulevard has a serious, almost guaranteed effect of substantially raising land value and attracting younger people and the gentrification that comes with it, especially in the areas near the State Capital and the cathedral. I know that I am eyeing action on Rethinking I-94 carefully as someone who hopes to live in the Cathedral Hill neighborhood after college - the gentrification experienced there will probably only flood further north. There is a certain appeal to these St. Paul neighborhoods, especially people like me who want urban amenities but prefer an overall calmer, more streetcar-suburb vibe, and a boulevard would only add to that feeling, causing more people to move in. I'm not saying this gentrification is entirely terrible (I think gentrification has a lot positive effects, but a number of negatives as well), but it is something that I feel many other supporters are not really taking into account as much as they should.

[alexschief]

If I-94 were replaced with a boulevard and gentrification actually occurred, frankly that would be an unbelievable success for the City of St. Paul. That would mean that the redesign had succeeded in creating a truly desirable parklike transportation corridor, with real transit service, and as a result all the surplus land (and surely the underutilized land to the north) became very hot and had gotten quickly redeveloped.

The far more likely scenario in the boulevard hypothetical is that the surplus highway land and strip mall land is very slowly built upon over the years, and that a decade hence there are still plenty of unbuilt parcels in the corridor. That's the reality of the real estate market in St. Paul and this corridor in particular. It doesn't mean the boulevard replacement is a bad idea, just that this project is not going to fundamentally alter the economics of the city's real estate market. Between the Ford Site, Hillcrest, Midway, the Sears Site, and the West Side Flats, there are a huge number of existing sites for massive apartment building in the city—before we start hypothesizing about I-94—and progress is not exactly breakneck on any of them.

[thespeedmccool]

I'm also still very unconvinced that there's any scenario in which MNDOT's 'boulevard' would be "a truly desirable parklike transportation corridor, with real transit service." It remains exceedingly more likely that MNDOT would build a six-lane stroad akin to Olson Memorial Highway.

My gut tells me that from a political and economic standpoint, "Total removal" > "Interstate 94 with transit lanes" > "Stroad conversion" > "Expanded Interstate 94".

(In fact, if we were talking about adding rail instead of bus lanes to 94, I'd prefer 94 with rail to total removal, but since rail doesn't seem to be on the table, that's a moot point.)

[pannierpacker2]

What does total removal look like? Does that mean no road there at all? Not even a city street? If the area is going to be redeveloped at all, I'd imagine to some degree some infrastructure would need to be built.

[thespeedmccool]

What does total removal look like? Does that mean no road there at all? Not even a city street? If the area is going to be redeveloped at all, I'd imagine to some degree some infrastructure would need to be built.

Remember that 94 today through St. Paul is only one block wide. Really, you wouldn't need a new road here for the land to be developable. Access from St. Anthony and Concordia would be plenty.

The whole reason a 'boulevard' conversion is what activists are pushing for is because they (rightly) assume MNDOT would never just straight up remove a highway. Removal isn't on the table; a new surface highway is.

[pannierpacker2]

What does total removal look like? Does that mean no road there at all? Not even a city street? If the area is going to be redeveloped at all, I'd imagine to some degree some infrastructure would need to be built.

Remember that 94 today through St. Paul is only one block wide. Really, you wouldn't need a new road here for the land to be developable. Access from St. Anthony and Concordia would be plenty.

The whole reason a 'boulevard' conversion is what activists are pushing for is because they (rightly) assume MNDOT would never just straight up remove a highway. Removal isn't on the table; a new surface highway is.

It's true that in the section between St Anthony blvd and Concordia, it would be much easier to redevelop that with no road in between than other sections. Worst case, you could widen St. Anthony and Concordia to accommodate any additional traffic/parking/streetscape needs. After Aldine St (going west) the highway is much more located in its own path, abutting the railroad corridor. It's not to say you couldn't do an entire road removal there as well, but it'd more challenging because re-developed properties these days often ends up being big box apartment buildings and larger commercial buildings (unless building SFHs). Such development requires a larger road being in close proximity (such as University Ave) to access. It's even more awkward west 280 because that area transitions to quiet and small residential very quickly.

So, was your list ordering the options from least likely to most likely from a political/economic standpoint?

[thespeedmccool]

So, was your list ordering the options from least likely to most likely from a political/economic standpoint?

No, that was my ranking of personal preference. I'd prefer full removal to a modified freeway, a modified freeway to a surface arterial, and a surface arterial to an expanded freeway.

Just my personal preferences given the economic and political implications of taking any of these steps.

[angrysuburbanite]

I've given it a bit of thought, and I think that in order for the boulevard to be constructed, there would be a lot of different things that have to be done in tandem with each other. Here is a list of what I think should be done in order to avoid or minimize the chances of a Hiawatha Avenue:
1. Split the corridor into segments (Cedar-riverside, that area by the U of M, midway, summit-university, etc.) and figure out how the highway currently interfaces with nearby land use. Since the land use is not consistent, the boulevard should adopt to that.
2. After that, the road layout can begin to be determined, preferably with wide pedestrian space, biking, dedicated transit lanes (hopefully a Gold Line extension), and sufficient, but narrow vehicle lanes to slow people down, especially with the straight shot through St. Paul to Fairview Avenue. Existing interchanges into freeways that won't be removed should be made more compact. Lots of grass and/or trees should divide the pedestrian area from the car area, and there should be lots of care in how pedestrian crossings are laid out so it doesn't become too stroady. Public seating, wayfinding, lighting, and plaza space should be priorities.
3. Next is the hardest part: a corridor land use plan. This doesn't just cover the newly available space where the freeway once was, but also underutilized land, specifically the old Sears lot and the area near Allianz Field. I would like to see a block-by-block zoning and land use analysis and try to seamlessly integrate new development into the nearby well-established neighborhoods. I know that Allianz Field has had some of its own stuff planned, and it should be done in coordination with the boulevard. Circling back to #1, some sections of the boulevard should see less development than other sections--I think the closer it is to downtown St. Paul, the more there should be built
4. Depending on the outcome of my step #3, it would be worth considering some sort of special "boulevard zoning code" to make sure more car-oriented crap isn't constructed.

There are a lot of complexities to this boulevard that I would imagine many planners in the Twin Cities are not very experienced with. Though unlikely, I would love to see MnDOT bring in some planners from abroad to get it right.

This post is already getting way too long, but one last thing: I want to see the boulevard directly connect into Downtown St. Paul, even if it means relocating the Minnesota History Center. It's worth it. Cap 35E with the boulevard and connect it to either 5th or 6th street, depending on what happens with the 5th street pedestrian mall thing. Doing this could halve the size of this interchange and open up lots of high-value land.

Restoring the old street grid and having no arterial/boulevard here is an intriguing idea that I think I might prefer over the boulevard, to be honest.