urbanMSP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.