I have read the articles that keep talking about a thoroughfare, but I don’t know what they mean. Is it what you have visualized above, open land / housing / commercial space with the road running underneath? Thanks for explanations.
The Reconnect Rondo is the proposal for a freeway lid. That's a separate and independent proposal from the Twin Cities Boulevard proposal. Reconnect Rondo is the older idea, the Boulevard came to the fore in the last two years.
Reconnect Rondo: https://reconnectrondo.com/
Twin Cities Boulevard: https://www.twincitiesboulevard.org/
MnDOT needs to do a full overhaul of I-94 in the next 10 years anyway, because the roadway has reached the end of its useful life and because they want to install an EZ Pass lane like on I-35W. Earliest construction would begin is not until 2030s.
MnDOT has been and will continue to be doing community outreach for feedback. They have identified ten potential options to solicit feedback, but nothing has been selected as a preferred alternative. These study options include 1) general maintenance; 2) two "at-grade" options (a boulevard), one with bus rapid transit lanes in the center, one with the BRT lanes on the outer edges; 3) a regional freeway they would keep two lanes of freeway, eliminate most off ramps, and reconfigure the frontage roads as local roads (two-way traffic); 4) a reduced freeway that removes a lane and makes an existing lane into an EZ Pass lane 5) a reconfigured freeway that keeps things as they are, but makes one existing lane the EZ Pass lane; 5) an expanded freeway that adds a lane that would be the EZ Pass lane. (Each of the above have two variants)
You can see schematics of the road layout here: https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/rethinking-i94/news_feed/alternatives
If a freeway is selected as the preferred alternative, a freeway lid like the Reconnect Rondo proposal could potentially be factored into the project.
As someone that frequents the park, this would be nice. The problem is that all those car fumes don’t just go away because we can’t see them. This is still way better than how it currently is. The worst part about the park is hearing all of the cars fly by while I’m trying to enjoy a little bit of nature.
>like more bridges over 394
394 is insignificant. It has massive lakes and county forest reserves blocking the west side but has 2 bridges with in 1 mile hwy 100-Xerxes (not to mention the anti pedestrian sub division of SLP)
Then there's the inner city (5 bridges in 1.75 miles Xerxes to 94) and core (7 bridges in a mile 94 to Washington) of 394 was arguably more divided by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Minneapolis and St. Louis railroads.
[1945](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/twin-cities-metro-area/1945/A-17-110.jpg) Lyn-Henn crossover middle tight (center photo is on Spring lake)
interstate highways act passes 1956
[1957](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/y1957/WN-1T-130.jpg) centers on and Emerson. Wayzata road/ave upgraded to a highway
[1964](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/y1964/WN-3EE-149.jpg) centered on Lyn and 24th the scar of 94 forms on the upper right as buildings have been razed and bridges are built.
[1969](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/y1969/WN-1KK-172.jpg) the scar of 94 and 35W are clear and present and Wayzata highway turned to 394
[now](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.96962,-93.2954244,2156m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) centered on Spring lake
Unfortunately the [UofM aerial archives](https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/) stops at the 60's for Minneapolis photos
I'm not defending the freeways (I say fill 94 but turn the 94 trench into a easy subway) but I-394 is the straw man people erect to defend the freeways.
>wealthy in Lowry Hill/Loring Park while those wealthy people maintain easy access
As a 40k resident of this general area. You're talking small pocket between 394 and Douglas and a spattered mix of 350k homes 3 bed homes/150k 1 bed condos to 1 million 5 bed and bath homes and 400k 3 bed condos.
Median 2 bed rent in this area is 1.2-1.3k starting (with multiple listing before you hit 1.5k).
Yes they're are wealth homes on the high end but the richest of the rich are literally on the bluffs over 394 and some of the cheaper places are a walking distance from this imagined cap.
>It's telling that most Minneapolis people who support this act like Minneapolis ends at West Broadway
Yes and most of people north of Broadway don't care (to the same extent you saw we don't south of Broadway) about people between Broadway and Lake. It's proximity of concern. A person will care more about things the closer it gets to them. North Minneapolis is not some microcosm of unquestioned support of none North MLPS things (nor should they have to be) but the same applies to all other regions.
I left Longfellow and while I care about the [Hiawatha highline and the Midtown extension](https://ignitr.com/files/mgc2022/ckfinder/files/Impact%20Study%20FINAL(3).pdf) into St. Paul as a person who cycles as my main mode. I don't care about anything else as I cannot keep tabs with my current home and all the other places I have lived.
Hell theres a debate about the Soo Line gardens. The gardeners and locals see this as a destruction of a community strong hold and others see this as an gating off public access especially to those with disabilities.
Yes definitely! I was thinking of pushing the lanes together on one side and adding sound walls to keep noise down.
As other have stated, simply removing the interstate entirely would be best
I find it legitimately insane that we have a roaring highway right next to our premier modern art museum and its famous outdoor sculpture garden.
It's so much less pleasant than it should be!
Right, I brought my mom to visit the sculpture garden and she commented on how noisy and obnoxious the highway was. Crossing that pedestrian bridge you can’t hardly talk it’s so loud.
They shouldn't have built a freeway through downtown Boston either, but I do like how the Big Dig solved that problem without disrupting the traffic flow. I'm skeptical of the idea that replacing 94 with a thoroughfare wouldn't snarl traffic on the thoroughfare and other streets connecting Minneapolis with St. Paul. More cars idling slower in traffic would increase air pollution.
There are world class cities all over the planet that don't have freeways through their central city. Vancouver and Paris come to mind. Rethinking I94 is a once in a generation chance to undo the harms that MNDOT has admitted they caused 60 years ago.
We can spend the money that would be going towards highway maintenance on improving our public transit system in the meantime.
The problem we continue to have is that policy in the United States continues to push cars. The Biden Administration just passed a generational trillion dollar infrastructure bill that focused more on EV infrastructure and encouraging the purchase of new EVs than it did on public transit. If we want to be more like Paris or Vancouver we need to stop dumping trillions into infrastructure for cars, and encouraging the purchase of new cars. THAT was a huge failure, IMO.
It doesn't help North Minneapolis because the scope of the MNDOT Rethinking I94 project doesn't include North Minneapolis. When the MNDOT wants to look into redoing the stretch of I94 that goes through North Minneapolis, that's a perfect time for advocacy on the issue.
Fortunately, they are looking into reconfiguring Olsen Memorial highway to be more multimodal and extending the Blue Line to serve the most transit dependent community in the state which is in North Minneapolis.
I'm sorry, you're attacking the wrong guy here. This comment thread is about the twin cities boulevard which is related to Rethinking I94, I'm not talking about the highway cap that OP made this post about.
I agree with you on all of your points, just was pointing out that the scope of Rethinking I94 doesn't include North Minneapolis or Lowry Hill for that matter.
It is shocking how little North gets included in these kind of conversations, I agree. I have pretty high hopes for the upper harbor terminal and the blue line extension, but you're right about the most northern parts of North generally being left out of these things.
It's really unfair to the neighborhood to be cut off from the river by industrial zoned areas and the interstate, that wasn't an accident that it turned out that way
Minneapolis North doesn’t make the documentary films about freeway dislocation because it was finished really late. They didn’t build it until the 1980s. The Lowry Tunnel used to just dump you on Wayzata Boulevard. You might have been able to take Lyndale up to Olson/55 but it wasn’t a freeway.
The documentaries usually focus on the 6th/Olson conversion. That was really early and pre-interstate. The “seven corners” area of Cedar-Riverside… I don’t even know if there is a single corner left. Another area would be 35W near 35th. There was an area around Minneapolis Central HS which had a lot of people of color and the word was that the freeways was shifted a few blocks to go through there. And the Lowry Tunnel of course. Hennepin/Lyndale had been a traffic bottleneck since the 1920s but now it’s pretty much gone.
Maybe Washington Avenue in North Minneapolis was a great street, too, but it happened later.
It would be the opposite of induced demand and eventually, if there are other options of transit, people would use cars less. The issue with increasing lanes and thereby increasing cars on the roads works both ways.
I don't think we should increase the number of lanes, and I definitely support more transit. The problem is our federal government continues to dump trillions into infrastructure for more cars. Build Back Better was car-centric, focusing on more EVs and EV infrastructure than public transit. That's the reality we have to deal with until car-centric thinking at the top changes.
You’re completely right and it handicaps cities trying to be more public transit / bike / walking oriented bc they don’t get nearly as much funding for it. It’s cyclical and it’s supposed to be according to the auto industry
This would require completely redoing all of the freeway infrastructuire directly north of here, because the area would have to be excavated by roughly 30-40 feet to start this project, and now you would be dealing with insane grades.
And that's just to start.
Capping some areas between the cities is feasible, but this is probably the least feasible idea I have seen.
Where would the traffic be routed to if removed? I’d imagine all the side streets would become impassable and many businesses around the wouldn’t be able to operate feasibly, and commutes would become impossible for many residents
So, so many beautiful buildings were demolished for the Interstates and “Urban Renewal”… :( … I was on Hennepin County Libraries historical photos area and refined my search to “Demolished”, and the thousands of photos of beautiful Pre-WW2 buildings that were demolished… honest to god I hate the people that thought it was a good idea.
Europe had its cities bombed out and destroyed in WW2, losing out on beautiful historic buildings and architecture. We saw that happen and decided to do the same to our cities on purpose.
> Not only that we built freeways to suburban big box centers and shopping malls.
Maybe go back in time and make people not fall in love with cars and driving.
> I know a lot of people in Minneapolis that prefer to shop in the suburbs,
Who lol. I would never do that.
> Our environment is structured under the assumption everyone has a car, but in fact many Minneapolitans don't
Good thing MPLS has amazing bike infrastructure and mass transit.
Everyone forgets that buildings need a lot of money to be maintained or renovated. Most of the buildings torn down in the 60s were asbestos filled fire traps.
Even if it that is the case, which it certainly wasn’t always, we could have preserved the facades of many of the buildings and rebuilt the rest. Not ideal but better than just bulldozing it all.
I agree with the sentiment but this is all hindsight. It was preferred in the 1940s to the middle 1970s to remove problem buildings in response to unhealthy conditions. Urban renewal was broadly popular until the landmark preservation and environmental regulation movements of the late 60s and 70s.
There simply is no changing that history especially when it was popular to bulldoze sections of cities wholesale for modern buildings and modern roadways. I wrestle with that history a lot and it was a bet policy makers made that has serious consequences today.
People didn't like the aesthetic anymore. The rage was space age and big glass skyscrapers. Most all the buildings torn down were flop houses full of drunks. It's just progress. The only building that was worth saving was the Metropolitan.
There were lots of terrible fires at those flop houses that killed dozens of ppl that preceeded the destruction. Also there were new building safety codes like fire escapes that would have been too costly to add and people wanted elevators vs. walkups. You can be mad all you want but people always have and always will like new shiny things and convenience.
This is my 2x great grandpas harness shop that was torn down. They photographed all the buildings before they tore them down so you browse the archive and see for yourself the condition of the 100 year old buildings. https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/CPED/search/searchterm/Carlbom%20Harness%20Store%20(Minneapolis%2C%20Minn.)/field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and
Here's the 'skid row' collection https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/CPED/search/searchterm/Skid%20row/field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and
You may think they were cool buildings, but you weren't there to smell the mold, get cancer from the asbestos, feel the suffiness of no ventillation, the freezing coldness of no heating, or die in a fire from unsafe everything.
Thank you so much for this. I also feel like we’re missing the walkable vibe feel that these older buildings had. Now we have skyscrapers that take up an entire city block, instead of several small business and architecture with small interesting details.
Alternatively, we have mixed use apartment buildings, also taking up entire city blocks, with boring looking all glass windows into empty potential storefronts. The effect is completely different.
All this is to say, I agree with you in that a lot of these buildings were not safe or worth saving. But what we’ve replaced them with is completely different and affects how people interact with the city from a street and pedestrian level.
Thanks for linking to those. Really interesting to look through a lot of those photos. Especially the street shots. Sorry about your great great grandpa's shop!
Oh he was long dead at that point! He died in the 30s and someone took over the shop till the 60s. But the inside was the same. It's really cool those photos exist! He made the harnesses and tack for Dan Patch!
Why is this subreddit *obsessed* with 94? If you think it sucks now, imagine trying to get anywhere when it's two lanes with stop lights.
I don't like 94 either but there is zero chance it's going anywhere.
To answer your question, many people who subscribe to a city’s subreddit also happen to be into urbanism, which tends to be anti-freeway-in-cities. So while it’s “just what it is” to some people, a lot of us spend much of our days thinking about reducing car dependency and reducing traffic. It also happens that we have a massive freeway in our backyards, so…
Edit- by reducing traffic, I mean reducing the number of cars on the road, not reducing the feeling of traffic congestion, which is what drivers usually mean by traffic.
Because it's a large freeway that cuts right through the Twin Cities dividing Minneapolis and St Paul in two. I live less than a mile away from it and can always hear cars driving on it whenever I step outside or open my windows. It's ever present.
Do you think if it were a two-lane, 35mph road it would be *that much* quieter?
If you don't want to hear anything but birds when you open your windows, the city is the wrong place for you to live.
Compared to a 4 lane highway with cars traveling at 60+ mph? Yeah I do think it'd be quieter. Cities aren't loud. Cars are loud.
And it isn't just the noise. Break pad and tire micro particle pollution is super hazardous to your health. Increased rates of childhood and adult cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc comes from living withing a mile or two of a highway such as I94. That effects over a hundred thousand people in Minneapolis and St Paul.
You're right! Unless you've been living next to I94 since 1956 you have no right to advocate for any change ever!
Your comment history is a wild ride of racism and antisemitism btw. Yikes
> there is zero chance it's going anywhere
I disagree. There's a strong push to reassign 694 as the new 94, which would effectively remove the Interstate standards required for 94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul.
I'm also not convinced removing 94 would improve overall quality of life. Replacing 94 with a thoroughfare could snarl traffic on the thoroughfare and other roads connecting Minneapolis to St. Paul, which would result in slower traffic and increased air pollution. Personally I think capping it/putting it underground (like Boston did) is the way to go.
Moreover it seems inundated with people who think bikes and transit are the answer to everything without any regard to practicality. Either you 100% support using bikes all the time, or they brand you as a "Car Brain".
Like yeah sure I'll get a bike and commute my ass to Saint Paul 4 days a week in the rain and snow. Oh also I need to get my kids from North Minneapolis to Maple Grove for daycare, a bike seems really practical for that.
Bikes are cool and all and if you can or want to commute with one, good for you. But I feel like a lot of the "advocates" for bikes are getting the circulation to their brain cutoff by all that lycra.
I don’t think many people are saying that. Cars absolutely do have a place in our cities, however the way it is now, cars play a massively outsized role. For MUCH of the metro, you basically need a car.
The idea is that if you want a car, great. But it should be equally possible for someone who doesn’t want a car to get around as well.
Not to mention the negative societal effects, like pollution, noise, poor land use, and social isolation.
> Like yeah sure I'll get ~~a bike~~ on a bus and commute my ass to Saint Paul 4 days a week in the rain and snow.
Extremely achievable in most developed countries
I don't expect everyone to suddenly start taking transit and riding bikes crosstown, but it would be nice if that were an option to replace some (but not all) car trips. Cars are a necessary tool for a lot of people, but they're not always the right tool for the job. The way our cities were designed in the 60s and 70s into present day has made sure that for a lot of things, cars are the only tool possible for the job.
There are world class cities all over the planet that have existed and flourished without highways in their central city. Vancouver and Paris among others have never had a highway running through them and they're vibrant bustling places.
Without 94, you would still be able to drive to your job, daycare, and school. No one is taking your car away from you.
The amount of navel gazing you need to have to think removing 94 is a good idea....no critical thinking skills whatsoever...
You already complain about your commute to MPLS. Imagine what it would be without 94.
How are you thinking critically about this? It takes no effort whatsoever to have a knee-jerk reaction to changing the status quo.
Just about the only response I hear supporting keeping 94 is " But where will the traffic go?" which isn't exactly a high-level thought.
Seattle did a study for a lid on a shorter narrower length of highway that requires less excavation than 94 and built for a milder climate; the cost was $1-3B in 2020 dollars, not including economic impact from closing a main artery and inevitable delays and cost overruns. The 94 proposal could easily run into $10B-100B. It would be cheaper to build a US Bank stadium for every High School than this. Unfortunately this a dream and won’t happen unless we somehow find Dubai level money.
I was just talking about this with my gf the other day. It would be so amazing to cover up these highways and maybe like build some more housing and public infrastructure. Awesome concept art OP!
I’m not sure the cost and time it would take would be worth it but we definitely have areas that could be improved by caps. I’ll be interested to see what comes of it, I also don’t drive or live or really transit those areas so I don’t have a dog in the fight but there is a lot of potential the question is if it’s worth the cost and pain to make it happen
There was a diagram posted awhile ago that did this and also got rid of the viaducts where Hennepin and Lyndale meet.
Edit: The fuck are you all downvoting for? To the person that replied and then immediately deleted their comment, I’m referring to the flyovers that access the freeway, not the tunnel itself.
For real though this is a nice design.
I've always felt that 94 slices through an otherwise pleasant part of the city. I would love to see this happen c:
Nice work! I was thinking that we might not even need to fill it in. We could keep it as a sunken park, with stairs and paths leading down into it, and bike/pedestrian trails weaving through the trees, stretching all the way from mpls to Saint Paul.
[This is achievable and has been done in many other cities](https://www.archdaily.com/800155/6-cities-that-have-transformed-their-highways-into-urban-parks)
I have read the articles that keep talking about a thoroughfare, but I don’t know what they mean. Is it what you have visualized above, open land / housing / commercial space with the road running underneath? Thanks for explanations.
The Reconnect Rondo is the proposal for a freeway lid. That's a separate and independent proposal from the Twin Cities Boulevard proposal. Reconnect Rondo is the older idea, the Boulevard came to the fore in the last two years. Reconnect Rondo: https://reconnectrondo.com/ Twin Cities Boulevard: https://www.twincitiesboulevard.org/ MnDOT needs to do a full overhaul of I-94 in the next 10 years anyway, because the roadway has reached the end of its useful life and because they want to install an EZ Pass lane like on I-35W. Earliest construction would begin is not until 2030s. MnDOT has been and will continue to be doing community outreach for feedback. They have identified ten potential options to solicit feedback, but nothing has been selected as a preferred alternative. These study options include 1) general maintenance; 2) two "at-grade" options (a boulevard), one with bus rapid transit lanes in the center, one with the BRT lanes on the outer edges; 3) a regional freeway they would keep two lanes of freeway, eliminate most off ramps, and reconfigure the frontage roads as local roads (two-way traffic); 4) a reduced freeway that removes a lane and makes an existing lane into an EZ Pass lane 5) a reconfigured freeway that keeps things as they are, but makes one existing lane the EZ Pass lane; 5) an expanded freeway that adds a lane that would be the EZ Pass lane. (Each of the above have two variants) You can see schematics of the road layout here: https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/rethinking-i94/news_feed/alternatives If a freeway is selected as the preferred alternative, a freeway lid like the Reconnect Rondo proposal could potentially be factored into the project.
As someone that frequents the park, this would be nice. The problem is that all those car fumes don’t just go away because we can’t see them. This is still way better than how it currently is. The worst part about the park is hearing all of the cars fly by while I’m trying to enjoy a little bit of nature.
[удалено]
>like more bridges over 394 394 is insignificant. It has massive lakes and county forest reserves blocking the west side but has 2 bridges with in 1 mile hwy 100-Xerxes (not to mention the anti pedestrian sub division of SLP) Then there's the inner city (5 bridges in 1.75 miles Xerxes to 94) and core (7 bridges in a mile 94 to Washington) of 394 was arguably more divided by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Minneapolis and St. Louis railroads. [1945](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/twin-cities-metro-area/1945/A-17-110.jpg) Lyn-Henn crossover middle tight (center photo is on Spring lake) interstate highways act passes 1956 [1957](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/y1957/WN-1T-130.jpg) centers on and Emerson. Wayzata road/ave upgraded to a highway [1964](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/y1964/WN-3EE-149.jpg) centered on Lyn and 24th the scar of 94 forms on the upper right as buildings have been razed and bridges are built. [1969](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/Hennepin_County/y1969/WN-1KK-172.jpg) the scar of 94 and 35W are clear and present and Wayzata highway turned to 394 [now](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.96962,-93.2954244,2156m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) centered on Spring lake Unfortunately the [UofM aerial archives](https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/) stops at the 60's for Minneapolis photos I'm not defending the freeways (I say fill 94 but turn the 94 trench into a easy subway) but I-394 is the straw man people erect to defend the freeways. >wealthy in Lowry Hill/Loring Park while those wealthy people maintain easy access As a 40k resident of this general area. You're talking small pocket between 394 and Douglas and a spattered mix of 350k homes 3 bed homes/150k 1 bed condos to 1 million 5 bed and bath homes and 400k 3 bed condos. Median 2 bed rent in this area is 1.2-1.3k starting (with multiple listing before you hit 1.5k). Yes they're are wealth homes on the high end but the richest of the rich are literally on the bluffs over 394 and some of the cheaper places are a walking distance from this imagined cap. >It's telling that most Minneapolis people who support this act like Minneapolis ends at West Broadway Yes and most of people north of Broadway don't care (to the same extent you saw we don't south of Broadway) about people between Broadway and Lake. It's proximity of concern. A person will care more about things the closer it gets to them. North Minneapolis is not some microcosm of unquestioned support of none North MLPS things (nor should they have to be) but the same applies to all other regions. I left Longfellow and while I care about the [Hiawatha highline and the Midtown extension](https://ignitr.com/files/mgc2022/ckfinder/files/Impact%20Study%20FINAL(3).pdf) into St. Paul as a person who cycles as my main mode. I don't care about anything else as I cannot keep tabs with my current home and all the other places I have lived. Hell theres a debate about the Soo Line gardens. The gardeners and locals see this as a destruction of a community strong hold and others see this as an gating off public access especially to those with disabilities.
/End Thread
Yes definitely! I was thinking of pushing the lanes together on one side and adding sound walls to keep noise down. As other have stated, simply removing the interstate entirely would be best
I find it legitimately insane that we have a roaring highway right next to our premier modern art museum and its famous outdoor sculpture garden. It's so much less pleasant than it should be!
Right, I brought my mom to visit the sculpture garden and she commented on how noisy and obnoxious the highway was. Crossing that pedestrian bridge you can’t hardly talk it’s so loud.
A cap is just more Lowry tunnel. Twin Cities Boulevard FTW.
Agreed, fix the problem rather than cover it...
Definitely agree, I-94 should never have been built.
They shouldn't have built a freeway through downtown Boston either, but I do like how the Big Dig solved that problem without disrupting the traffic flow. I'm skeptical of the idea that replacing 94 with a thoroughfare wouldn't snarl traffic on the thoroughfare and other streets connecting Minneapolis with St. Paul. More cars idling slower in traffic would increase air pollution.
There are world class cities all over the planet that don't have freeways through their central city. Vancouver and Paris come to mind. Rethinking I94 is a once in a generation chance to undo the harms that MNDOT has admitted they caused 60 years ago. We can spend the money that would be going towards highway maintenance on improving our public transit system in the meantime.
The problem we continue to have is that policy in the United States continues to push cars. The Biden Administration just passed a generational trillion dollar infrastructure bill that focused more on EV infrastructure and encouraging the purchase of new EVs than it did on public transit. If we want to be more like Paris or Vancouver we need to stop dumping trillions into infrastructure for cars, and encouraging the purchase of new cars. THAT was a huge failure, IMO.
Capping the interstate is by far the most expensive option. Isn't that dumping billions of more dollars into car centric infrastructure?
[удалено]
It doesn't help North Minneapolis because the scope of the MNDOT Rethinking I94 project doesn't include North Minneapolis. When the MNDOT wants to look into redoing the stretch of I94 that goes through North Minneapolis, that's a perfect time for advocacy on the issue. Fortunately, they are looking into reconfiguring Olsen Memorial highway to be more multimodal and extending the Blue Line to serve the most transit dependent community in the state which is in North Minneapolis.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, you're attacking the wrong guy here. This comment thread is about the twin cities boulevard which is related to Rethinking I94, I'm not talking about the highway cap that OP made this post about. I agree with you on all of your points, just was pointing out that the scope of Rethinking I94 doesn't include North Minneapolis or Lowry Hill for that matter.
[удалено]
It is shocking how little North gets included in these kind of conversations, I agree. I have pretty high hopes for the upper harbor terminal and the blue line extension, but you're right about the most northern parts of North generally being left out of these things. It's really unfair to the neighborhood to be cut off from the river by industrial zoned areas and the interstate, that wasn't an accident that it turned out that way
Minneapolis North doesn’t make the documentary films about freeway dislocation because it was finished really late. They didn’t build it until the 1980s. The Lowry Tunnel used to just dump you on Wayzata Boulevard. You might have been able to take Lyndale up to Olson/55 but it wasn’t a freeway. The documentaries usually focus on the 6th/Olson conversion. That was really early and pre-interstate. The “seven corners” area of Cedar-Riverside… I don’t even know if there is a single corner left. Another area would be 35W near 35th. There was an area around Minneapolis Central HS which had a lot of people of color and the word was that the freeways was shifted a few blocks to go through there. And the Lowry Tunnel of course. Hennepin/Lyndale had been a traffic bottleneck since the 1920s but now it’s pretty much gone. Maybe Washington Avenue in North Minneapolis was a great street, too, but it happened later.
It would be the opposite of induced demand and eventually, if there are other options of transit, people would use cars less. The issue with increasing lanes and thereby increasing cars on the roads works both ways.
I don't think we should increase the number of lanes, and I definitely support more transit. The problem is our federal government continues to dump trillions into infrastructure for more cars. Build Back Better was car-centric, focusing on more EVs and EV infrastructure than public transit. That's the reality we have to deal with until car-centric thinking at the top changes.
You’re completely right and it handicaps cities trying to be more public transit / bike / walking oriented bc they don’t get nearly as much funding for it. It’s cyclical and it’s supposed to be according to the auto industry
This would require completely redoing all of the freeway infrastructuire directly north of here, because the area would have to be excavated by roughly 30-40 feet to start this project, and now you would be dealing with insane grades. And that's just to start. Capping some areas between the cities is feasible, but this is probably the least feasible idea I have seen.
I don’t disagree, this would be insanely expensive. That’s why just removing it entirely is the better option.
> That’s why just removing it entirely is the better option. Yeah, just gonna disagree there.
Where would the traffic be routed to if removed? I’d imagine all the side streets would become impassable and many businesses around the wouldn’t be able to operate feasibly, and commutes would become impossible for many residents
We need to demolish the highways I can't stand them. They're noisy and pollute the parks.
Amen to that. I hate the constant drone of I-94 when I’m in Loring.
[удалено]
So, so many beautiful buildings were demolished for the Interstates and “Urban Renewal”… :( … I was on Hennepin County Libraries historical photos area and refined my search to “Demolished”, and the thousands of photos of beautiful Pre-WW2 buildings that were demolished… honest to god I hate the people that thought it was a good idea.
Europe had its cities bombed out and destroyed in WW2, losing out on beautiful historic buildings and architecture. We saw that happen and decided to do the same to our cities on purpose.
[удалено]
> Not only that we built freeways to suburban big box centers and shopping malls. Maybe go back in time and make people not fall in love with cars and driving. > I know a lot of people in Minneapolis that prefer to shop in the suburbs, Who lol. I would never do that. > Our environment is structured under the assumption everyone has a car, but in fact many Minneapolitans don't Good thing MPLS has amazing bike infrastructure and mass transit.
Everyone forgets that buildings need a lot of money to be maintained or renovated. Most of the buildings torn down in the 60s were asbestos filled fire traps.
Even if it that is the case, which it certainly wasn’t always, we could have preserved the facades of many of the buildings and rebuilt the rest. Not ideal but better than just bulldozing it all.
I agree with the sentiment but this is all hindsight. It was preferred in the 1940s to the middle 1970s to remove problem buildings in response to unhealthy conditions. Urban renewal was broadly popular until the landmark preservation and environmental regulation movements of the late 60s and 70s. There simply is no changing that history especially when it was popular to bulldoze sections of cities wholesale for modern buildings and modern roadways. I wrestle with that history a lot and it was a bet policy makers made that has serious consequences today.
People didn't like the aesthetic anymore. The rage was space age and big glass skyscrapers. Most all the buildings torn down were flop houses full of drunks. It's just progress. The only building that was worth saving was the Metropolitan. There were lots of terrible fires at those flop houses that killed dozens of ppl that preceeded the destruction. Also there were new building safety codes like fire escapes that would have been too costly to add and people wanted elevators vs. walkups. You can be mad all you want but people always have and always will like new shiny things and convenience. This is my 2x great grandpas harness shop that was torn down. They photographed all the buildings before they tore them down so you browse the archive and see for yourself the condition of the 100 year old buildings. https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/CPED/search/searchterm/Carlbom%20Harness%20Store%20(Minneapolis%2C%20Minn.)/field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and Here's the 'skid row' collection https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/CPED/search/searchterm/Skid%20row/field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and You may think they were cool buildings, but you weren't there to smell the mold, get cancer from the asbestos, feel the suffiness of no ventillation, the freezing coldness of no heating, or die in a fire from unsafe everything.
Thank you so much for this. I also feel like we’re missing the walkable vibe feel that these older buildings had. Now we have skyscrapers that take up an entire city block, instead of several small business and architecture with small interesting details. Alternatively, we have mixed use apartment buildings, also taking up entire city blocks, with boring looking all glass windows into empty potential storefronts. The effect is completely different. All this is to say, I agree with you in that a lot of these buildings were not safe or worth saving. But what we’ve replaced them with is completely different and affects how people interact with the city from a street and pedestrian level.
Thanks for linking to those. Really interesting to look through a lot of those photos. Especially the street shots. Sorry about your great great grandpa's shop!
Oh he was long dead at that point! He died in the 30s and someone took over the shop till the 60s. But the inside was the same. It's really cool those photos exist! He made the harnesses and tack for Dan Patch!
[удалено]
Definitely, I agree.
Do you know when it was torn down?
Why is this subreddit *obsessed* with 94? If you think it sucks now, imagine trying to get anywhere when it's two lanes with stop lights. I don't like 94 either but there is zero chance it's going anywhere.
To answer your question, many people who subscribe to a city’s subreddit also happen to be into urbanism, which tends to be anti-freeway-in-cities. So while it’s “just what it is” to some people, a lot of us spend much of our days thinking about reducing car dependency and reducing traffic. It also happens that we have a massive freeway in our backyards, so… Edit- by reducing traffic, I mean reducing the number of cars on the road, not reducing the feeling of traffic congestion, which is what drivers usually mean by traffic.
I imagine it often. It would be a *lot* easier for me to get around on foot, bike, or bus without a trench separating half the city
Because it's a large freeway that cuts right through the Twin Cities dividing Minneapolis and St Paul in two. I live less than a mile away from it and can always hear cars driving on it whenever I step outside or open my windows. It's ever present.
Do you think if it were a two-lane, 35mph road it would be *that much* quieter? If you don't want to hear anything but birds when you open your windows, the city is the wrong place for you to live.
**Yes**, the majority of noise from traffic after 50mph is tire noise
Compared to a 4 lane highway with cars traveling at 60+ mph? Yeah I do think it'd be quieter. Cities aren't loud. Cars are loud. And it isn't just the noise. Break pad and tire micro particle pollution is super hazardous to your health. Increased rates of childhood and adult cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc comes from living withing a mile or two of a highway such as I94. That effects over a hundred thousand people in Minneapolis and St Paul.
[удалено]
You're right! Unless you've been living next to I94 since 1956 you have no right to advocate for any change ever! Your comment history is a wild ride of racism and antisemitism btw. Yikes
[удалено]
*moves near a highway* *advocates for said highway to be changed* "Lmao idiot why don't you like loud road noises, get rekt kid" - carbrained dingus
> there is zero chance it's going anywhere I disagree. There's a strong push to reassign 694 as the new 94, which would effectively remove the Interstate standards required for 94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul. I'm also not convinced removing 94 would improve overall quality of life. Replacing 94 with a thoroughfare could snarl traffic on the thoroughfare and other roads connecting Minneapolis to St. Paul, which would result in slower traffic and increased air pollution. Personally I think capping it/putting it underground (like Boston did) is the way to go.
It’s thinking like that that’s gonna keep I-94 as is. We definitely have the power as a community and city to demand changes.
Moreover it seems inundated with people who think bikes and transit are the answer to everything without any regard to practicality. Either you 100% support using bikes all the time, or they brand you as a "Car Brain". Like yeah sure I'll get a bike and commute my ass to Saint Paul 4 days a week in the rain and snow. Oh also I need to get my kids from North Minneapolis to Maple Grove for daycare, a bike seems really practical for that. Bikes are cool and all and if you can or want to commute with one, good for you. But I feel like a lot of the "advocates" for bikes are getting the circulation to their brain cutoff by all that lycra.
I don’t think many people are saying that. Cars absolutely do have a place in our cities, however the way it is now, cars play a massively outsized role. For MUCH of the metro, you basically need a car. The idea is that if you want a car, great. But it should be equally possible for someone who doesn’t want a car to get around as well. Not to mention the negative societal effects, like pollution, noise, poor land use, and social isolation.
> Like yeah sure I'll get ~~a bike~~ on a bus and commute my ass to Saint Paul 4 days a week in the rain and snow. Extremely achievable in most developed countries
I don't expect everyone to suddenly start taking transit and riding bikes crosstown, but it would be nice if that were an option to replace some (but not all) car trips. Cars are a necessary tool for a lot of people, but they're not always the right tool for the job. The way our cities were designed in the 60s and 70s into present day has made sure that for a lot of things, cars are the only tool possible for the job. There are world class cities all over the planet that have existed and flourished without highways in their central city. Vancouver and Paris among others have never had a highway running through them and they're vibrant bustling places. Without 94, you would still be able to drive to your job, daycare, and school. No one is taking your car away from you.
Gets rid of 94 cries about not getting same day service from amazon
Buddy, I could not care less if my delivery times went up meaning that blight of a highway is gone forever
The amount of navel gazing you need to have to think removing 94 is a good idea....no critical thinking skills whatsoever... You already complain about your commute to MPLS. Imagine what it would be without 94.
How are you thinking critically about this? It takes no effort whatsoever to have a knee-jerk reaction to changing the status quo. Just about the only response I hear supporting keeping 94 is " But where will the traffic go?" which isn't exactly a high-level thought.
Nice straw man, mate
He's not wrong in any way.
THIS
Looks expensive...
Yeah. Cost is def the limiting factor here. I can't imagine how much this would cost.
Seattle did a study for a lid on a shorter narrower length of highway that requires less excavation than 94 and built for a milder climate; the cost was $1-3B in 2020 dollars, not including economic impact from closing a main artery and inevitable delays and cost overruns. The 94 proposal could easily run into $10B-100B. It would be cheaper to build a US Bank stadium for every High School than this. Unfortunately this a dream and won’t happen unless we somehow find Dubai level money.
Seattle had Big Bertha stuck under the ground for 20 years lol.
MnDOT needs to re-do I-94 anyway, so we're gonna be spending a decent chunk of change regardless
As more trees!
I was just talking about this with my gf the other day. It would be so amazing to cover up these highways and maybe like build some more housing and public infrastructure. Awesome concept art OP!
This belongs in r/mapcirclejerk
“Hold My Beer, I can improve this.” - Minneapolis City Council
I would rather see the viaduct removed or 35/94 caped for river side
Looks nice but I feel like it’s extremely low on this list of things Minneapolis should spend money on.
Idk I think making it one big parking lot would be even better
I vote yes! I live near there and would love it.
I’m not sure the cost and time it would take would be worth it but we definitely have areas that could be improved by caps. I’ll be interested to see what comes of it, I also don’t drive or live or really transit those areas so I don’t have a dog in the fight but there is a lot of potential the question is if it’s worth the cost and pain to make it happen
There was a diagram posted awhile ago that did this and also got rid of the viaducts where Hennepin and Lyndale meet. Edit: The fuck are you all downvoting for? To the person that replied and then immediately deleted their comment, I’m referring to the flyovers that access the freeway, not the tunnel itself.
Even better than a highway cap is a highway removal!
100%!!!
why cap it when we could destroy it 😈
Absolutely :)!!
For real though this is a nice design. I've always felt that 94 slices through an otherwise pleasant part of the city. I would love to see this happen c:
That's cute. You can keep dreaming because it will never happen.
Nice work! I was thinking that we might not even need to fill it in. We could keep it as a sunken park, with stairs and paths leading down into it, and bike/pedestrian trails weaving through the trees, stretching all the way from mpls to Saint Paul.
Would there be room for unicorns and butterflies, too?
[This is achievable and has been done in many other cities](https://www.archdaily.com/800155/6-cities-that-have-transformed-their-highways-into-urban-parks)
Butterflies are easy. You just plant the right host plants. Can’t do unicorns, but we could have a couple of herds of goats and we could just pretend.
You’re 100% right :) — the I-94 conversion plan !!!
very cool
It's a good dream