Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Despite efforts to rethink the role of Interstate 94 through the St. Paul-Minneapolis corridor, the Minnesota Department of Transportation continues to insist that freeway traffic is inevitable. But this assumption is hard to reconcile with a heating planet and statewide goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 20%. Sixty years ago, MnDOT used its power to make car use more convenient than public transit, and low-income neighborhoods were bulldozed to make this happen. Now that it’s time to make a decision for the next 60 years, MnDOT is pretending it no longer has the power to make transformative change.
The Rethinking I-94 project will determine the future of convenient transportation in the Twin Cities. The “at-grade” option being considered would remove the freeway trench and replace it with a boulevard with expanded public transportation, freeing up land for housing, parks and small businesses. These changes would decrease air pollution, increase the local tax base and create space for new affordable housing. Although neighborhood organizations, community members and the Minneapolis City Council have expressed support for this boulevard, MnDOT has announced its plans to eliminate the boulevard from further consideration (“MnDOT: Keep I-94 a freeway, scrap parkway,” Dec. 21).
We’re not traffic engineers or transportation experts. We’re just people who live a few blocks from I-94 in St. Paul. And because we recognize how much I-94 impacts our daily lives, we were curious to understand how MnDOT came to its conclusions about removing the boulevard option, so we read through MnDOT’s leaked report and spreadsheets documenting its analysis. What we found stunned us.
MnDOT’s goals for this project are incredibly conservative. Its analysis is full of contradictions, and it never evaluated all the options fairly. Rethinking I-94 is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and our goals should match the moment. According to its evaluation, MnDOT imagines an increase of up to 31,000 daily riders by car but only, at most, 570 by transit. These meager transportation goals highlight a troubling reality — MnDOT is uninterested in seriously addressing climate change. This is climate defeatism; starting from the assumption that any action that fits the scale of looming climate destruction is too big to pursue.
MnDOT’s assessment is also full of puzzling contradictions. It finds that highway expansion would increase pedestrian access while the boulevard’s expanded sidewalks would decrease it. It asserts that an expanded freeway would benefit bikers, but a boulevard with a designated bike lane would be worse. It suggests that a smaller road with more space for greenery would increase exposure to air pollution, whereas an expanded freeway that directly cuts through neighborhoods wouldn’t. These bizarre findings are based on the core assumption underpinning all of the MnDOT analyses: that the total amount of car traffic cannot be reduced.
Many of the voices that are calling for a boulevard are often labeled car and highway haters. As two of those voices, we can say this isn’t true. Most of us recognize the vital role that highways play in intra- and inter-state travel as well as commerce. What we oppose, however, is when a highway cuts through the middle of our neighborhoods and communities, harming us in the process.
