Road Rage

One of the biggest problems Lefties in America have is there are too many Idealists.  Don't get me wrong, I at times am a heavy-duty idealist, but some people on the left are consumed by it, refusing to acknowledge any practical issues that legitimately jeopardize their dreams.

The current idealist cause du jour is a real ambitious one.  They want to take Interstate 94 from Marion St. in St. Paul, through the Midway, to basically Interstate 35W in Minneapolis (nearly 8 miles), and boulevard it.  What this would require is the removal of the Interstate completely between those two points, filling in the large gap, and in its place building a road with two lanes in each direction, traffic lights at the majority of intersections, dedicated mass transit lanes, expanded sidewalks and bike trails, and a replaced neighborhood feel.  

I do admit my internal idealist likes a lot of the aspects of this approach, but there is a "slight" problem that the people proposing this plan are almost belligerently ignoring; what do you do with the 160,000+ vehicles which use Interstate 94 in between the two downtowns on a daily basis? 

That is a pretty big freaking problem (amongst other issues) the people pushing this idea just ignore or blithely insist isn't really a problem.  

It is.  It's a really big one.

But let me start with the things I do like about this idea.  First, it would go a long way to correct the racial injustices that the building of the Interstate system thrived on.  Where the building of the Interstate system in rural America was not really an issue, when it came to building the roads into the established towns and cities, the question of 'where do they go' was answered time and time again with "through the poorer Black communities."  In the case of 94 in the Midway, the Rondo Neighborhood, with its successful, thriving Black community, was wiped away.  Making 94 a boulevard in this area would reconnect that neighborhood.

It would cut the CO2 emissions in that area. Climate change is real, and less CO2 is a good thing. At least on that boulevard, there would be fewer vehicles, meaning less pollution.

And it would undoubtedly bring back a neighborly feel to the community.  A walkable neighborhood would exist where it currently doesn't, with better mass transit options, and with that a more welcoming environment, and higher property values.

As good as some of those things sound, there's still a very large problem that needs to be addressed. What do you do with the 160,000+ vehicles that use that stretch of highway on any given day?

The response to that question from the pro-boulevard folks is somewhat comical.  "It won't be that bad!"  "They'll just take other roads." "There really aren't that many cars." "They'll manage!" "People will stop driving(???!)," (and my personal favorite) "Just build the boulevard and we'll figure that out later!" 

NO!  You can't just figure that out later.  This is a major metro area, with an economic and social model currently built on the Interstate systems we currently have in place.  To just shut down one of the biggest stretches of road in the upper Midwest and act like there won't be cataclysmic consequences is insanely selfish and naive. 

At one point, I was a traffic reporter.  I would sit for hours and watch traffic cameras.  It was amazing how a lane closure due to construction or an accident would lead to massive backups on many of the roads in the area.  I remember one accident that shut down all but one lane in each direction on I-494 in the west metro and every north-south road in the area, including secondary side streets, had miles of backups.  Sure that was temporary, but to imply that permanently shutting down a major Interstate with no accommodating plan in place for the traffic which currently uses said Interstate wouldn't cause a catastrophic meltdown is ludicrous.

Pro-Boulevard people know this is an issue, basically trying to make the problem go away by insisting "traffic will magically disappear!" They've told me directly there'd be no lingering effect to taking away the main road 160,000+ people use every day!  To expose the reality of shutting down a major stretch of Interstate, there are a few different examples we can point to.  When the I-35W bridge collapsed, traffic was a nightmare.  I saw it firsthand.  Not only was I-94 in both directions into Minneapolis backed up FAR WORSE than normal, but many of the side streets with a bridge that crossed into the downtown were PACKED with cars.  Sure it was worst at the beginning of the crisis, but those levels never really eased up until the new bridge was open.  Read the report for yourself. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201021.pdf

Then there were the pro-boulevard folks who insisted when the I-95 bridge in Philadelphia collapsed there was ZERO impact on traffic.  They just made that up!  The reports from numerous news outlets in Philly showed the traffic was horrible, adding 20 to 30 minutes to the commute each way (that's a lot of CO2). And multiple reports showed the side streets were also packed during the bridge repair. https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-i95-collapse-traffic-commute/ and https://abc7ny.com/i-95-bridge-collapse-live-stream-philadelphia-repair/13417623/

And both cases were temporary, not a permanent long-term plan.  But pro-boulevard people point to a project in Detroit where they are boulevard-ing out an interstate, insisting "See, it can be done!"  The project they are referring to is the boulevard-ing of Interstate I-375.  There are A LOT of differences between that and what the pro-boulevard people are suggesting for I-94.  I-375 is a spur, less than a mile, right into the downtown, with two lanes in either direction.  When reopened, it'll be six boulevard lanes, at a cost of AT LEAST a quarter of a billion. The stretch they want to do in the Twin Cities midway is nearly 8 miles, the main highway connector between the two biggest downtowns in the state, 9 and 10 total lanes in some spots, 8 lanes for most of it, and their new I-94 boulevard will have only four lanes for car traffic.  These are nowhere even close to being the same project.  They're not comparable.

When the new I-35W bridge reopened, they shut down the extra lane they set up on the I-94 bridge over the Mississippi.  In the above-linked story, they also analyzed what that did to traffic.  Losing one lane on one bridge increased traffic by 2 to 6 minutes for many St. Paul commuters alone, and that wasn't shutting the whole thing down!  It was one lane, going from 5 lanes to 4 lanes for half a mile.  But I've had pro-boulevard people look at that warning sign and insist "So people have to drive for 2 to 6 minutes longer.  I think that's no big deal." I do not know what to say to people who should realize these numbers are a problem that points to a much larger issue but instead insist the total impact of removing 8 miles of major Interstate would be 5 to 10 minutes of extra traffic. 

You're not being serious, or honest.

You might be asking, "Didn't they come up with a solution already, the Rondo Land Bridge?"  Kind of.  It looks like that is the option they are going with, reconnecting the old Rondo neighborhood by putting a four-block land bridge over I-94 and filling it with 200 new housing units and a more neighborhood feeling for the area.  It's a great idea, which starts to address the racially insensitive construction of the Interstate system.  No, it doesn't limit Interstate traffic, nor (to my knowledge) add any new mass transit options for people traveling between the two downtowns, but it's a good start to covering up the blight of the industrial roadway. 

But I guess that wasn't good enough for some people, and they now want to take it to the extreme, upending the normal life of many others for their cause.

I'm going to take some time and give you an idea of what the metro would look like if you shut down I-94 in the Midway without doing anything else first (the solution many people on the pro-boulevard side seem to want to go with), and then let's figure out what the investment would have to be to try to make something like this happen so the city didn't implode.

IF YOU JUST GOT RID OF I-94 WITHOUT ANY MAJOR UPGRADES TO THE SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE:

The new "community friendly" boulevard would be constant bumper-to-bumper traffic.  Just the local commuters in St. Paul and the East metro who either work in the Midway or in Minneapolis will back that road up starting at 5 AM until likely 9 PM in both directions.  It will.  Marshall, Selby, Summit, and Grand on the south side of I-94 and  University and Minnehaha on the north side will also be bumper to bumper with limited speed.  And EVERY city street in the Midway will see some levels of increased traffic.  Neighborhoods that currently do not have a lot of vehicle traffic will have drivers frantically speeding through them at all times trying to find a quicker way between the downtowns.  Your community-friendly hopes will not come to fruition as the roads will become more akin to Central Ave. through Blane, or US 10 in the northwest metro.  It's hard to be pedestrian friendly when every road is blocked with cars full of angry commuters.

But versus Central and US 10, the speeds on these St. Paul streets will be A LOT slower.  The traffic lights will create a dam system that prevents the overwhelmed roads from being able to disperse the traffic quickly and efficiently.  My guess is a 45-minute commute (versus the current 15-minute one) from the State Capitol to US Bank Stadium, AT BEST.

Let's look at the traffic which will avoid the boulevard.  Just the through traffic which comes into the city either on the way to North Dakota and the West Coast or heading into Wisconsin will immediately cause our inadequate outer Interstate loop I-694/I-494 to be overwhelmed.  It will be bumper-to-bumper traffic on the entire ring, with the exception being the western side of the metro. And I'm not just talking rush hour.  We will graduate to Chicago/LA levels of all-day traffic. Secondary east-west highways which are few and far between will also be overwhelmed.  Highway 36 will become the option to go into downtown Minneapolis by highway from the East side (via hitting I-35W).  It will be overwhelmed.  Crosstown/62 on the south side will also be overwhelmed.  The additional traffic on I-494 and the Crosstown will make getting to the airport a traffic nightmare for anyone on the east side.

Mass transportation, even with a completed boulevard, will be great for a few people, but inadequate for most others.  Sure, if you live within two to three blocks of the boulevard, you'll have easy access to the mass transit options it'll offer, but what if you are 20 blocks away?  Are you going to hike that, even in winter?  Will you be relegated to multiple bus/light rail transfers to get where you need to go?  How about the people in the east-side suburbs?  Even if they did have a mass transit option near them (unlikely), it'd be at least three transfers and an extra hour to an hour and a half each way going to the west side.  Pro-boulevard people have insisted to me that this is a sacrifice the public will gladly accept.  That's delusional.

Then there is the immediate impact on the businesses that use I-94 between the downtowns to ship their products.  Pro-Boulevard people have insisted to me FOUR TIMES there are no businesses that ship on the I-94 corridor in the Midway.  That's just belligerent dishonesty.  They argue "Well I've never seen one." That's because you are intentionally not looking.  Businesses that ship will not stick around if every truck trip costs them an extra 5 gallons of gas each way.  Eventually, these businesses will move, creating another problem for the 'new utopia.'  The jobs will go away, but pro-boulevard folks seem to think people will gladly leave their 100K a year job in Minneapolis, or 65K a year job with benefits off of Hwy. 280, and instead choose to open up businesses like a 1910 neighborhood fruit stand, or a homemade hemp bag shop.  I've had five people tell me that will happen!  Their refusing to empathize with pro-Interstate people on business and personal economic issues doesn't help make their argument. 

And what about the Wild and MN United, who NEED people from the west side to come to their games.  The Ordway, Science Museum, History Museum, Children's Museum, and most restaurants and stores in St. Paul have a business model based on people coming from all around the metro to support them.  You are putting a lot of institutions into a difficult position; stay in a much harder to get to St. Paul, or move to Minneapolis where the population is much larger and it's easier to get to your front door?  My guess is most will eventually relocate to the west side.

As I said, this would be a mess for one reason.  Pro-boulevard people don't want to factor in the complete picture of their idealistic dream.  Maybe they have and they've realized what a nightmare it would be, but they choose to ignore the problem.  

COSTS:

Let's talk costs and investments that would be needed to make this even feasible.

Before one shovelful of dirt hits I-94, I-694 and I-494 on the East side will need billions of dollars in investment to expand to AT LEAST four lanes.  I-694 will need them over to Highway 100 in Brooklyn Center, and I-494 will need to be expanded to at least Crosstown 62 (the old 110). These upgrades will not be an option!  Highway 36 in the northeast will HAVE TO become an eight-lane highway, with no traffic lights, another 2 to 3 billion dollars in investment.  Crosstown 62 will also have to become a six to eight-lane, light-free highway (including a new Mentoda Bridge).  Total cost to make all of these upgrades: (pure guess) 25-30 billion.  THIS IS SPENDING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN STARTED TO WORK ON 94.

Let's get to that. Where are you getting the mountain of dirt you will need to fill in that ditch?  That's going to be a major environmental sacrifice on its own.  The cost of removing everything, filling it all in with dirt, and re-laying the sewers, drains, and everything underground for an 8-mile stretch will be probably 5 to 10 billion.  THEN you have to build the new road.  Probably another 2 billion will be needed for that alone.

You'd need an immediate massive influx of spending into mass transit throughout the entire east side of the metro.  Every town from Marine on St. Croix to Hastings, from 280 to the Wisconsin border (and probably Hudson, WI too) would need mass transit which is abundant and easy to access. At least another 5 to 10 billion there.

And by the way, even with all of these upgrades I'm still convinced traffic will be worse throughout St. Paul, on all streets.  That will deter Minneapolis folks from coming over.  I'm sure pro-boulevard people will say "who needs them!" You're a fool if you don't see the need to get people eating, shopping and visiting St. Paul.  Your best hope is to immediately do a mass expansion of mass transit from throughout Minneapolis and the entire west side into St. Paul, and not just one road's worth.  People will not come to St. Paul for an outing if it takes them 45 minutes to get there by car, or three transfers on mass transit. This is a mandatory investment to keep St. Paul alive.  Another 3 to 5 billion.

I've seen the suggestion from pro-boulevard people we could do all of this for one billion dollars.  HA!  That's an insanely myopic number.  If you want to do this and not have utter chaos, 45 to 60 billion is a much more realistic bet (and I keep thinking that is still woefully low). 

If you try to do this and do not have a full plan in place, it will blow up in your face!  By the next election cycle, when the people are furious at the nightmare the roads have become, all of your allies will be voted out of power and instead, you'll have hard-liners vowing to return things to the way they were.  Then you're done.  Your once glorious plan relegated to a cautionary tale whenever anyone suggests a similar idea.

If you want to see what might happen, suggest one weekday when traffic on I-94 can be limited to two lanes at certain points in both directions.  Then study what that does to the traffic for the east side overall.  Even with fair warning, I have a hard time not seeing St. Paul turning into a commuting nightmare. And remember, you'd still need to add intersection lights to those 2 lane roads.

May I suggest a different route?  Build the Rondo land bridge.  I think it will be successful, and that will lead to more stretches of I-94 getting their land bridges, reconnecting the old neighborhoods.  Encourage the responsible expansion of mass transit, making sure all areas are getting reliable daily service.  Encourage green car rebates and investments.  With luck, by 2050, we'll have far more green vehicles than fossil fuel ones.  

By slowly growing this out, you might actually get pretty close to your vision, but it will take time, 25 to 60 years. I understand that timeline is far longer than you want it to be, but I think by the time we get most of I-94 covered by land bridges, the impact of the highway will be far less. 

I want to reiterate, I agree with a lot of what they are trying to do, but I'm not willing to suspend reality or ignore legitimate problems which will arise just so I can bask in the sunlight of my own short-sighted vision.  NOR SHOULD YOU!  There is nothing wrong with being an idealist, but do not allow that to blind you to realities that need to be addressed, especially the realities which counterpoint your argument, cost far more than is realistic to budget, or might take longer to come to fruition than you like.

We should all try to make Minneapolis/St. Paul better, but the difference between reality and dreams is reality is attainable far more consistently than dreams are.  If you want to make your dreams happen, hook them to practical reality.