Your Voice Matters Now! 

Comment by March 9 on MnDOT’s Recommended Design Options for I-94.

​

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has released draft environmental documents for the reconstruction of Interstate-94 between downtown Saint Paul and downtown Minneapolis. 

Those documents identify three options that will be studied over the next two years. When the study concludes, MnDOT will select one design option that will guide the $1.5 to $2.5 billion reconstruction. Once built, the roadway will endure in that form for the next 50-60 years. 

Despite ten years of engagement with MnDOT, the Union Park District Council is not satisfied with the agency’s planning process or the draft environmental documents. MnDOT‘s adopted project goals (as laid out in the Purpose and Need Statement) focus too narrowly on increased mobility and congestion mitigation for vehicles. As a result, the consequences of the highway within neighborhoods – noise, unhealthy air, dangerous traffic on connecting roads, neighborhood separation – are minimized or ignored.  

​

The options for I-94 that MnDOT proposes to study are:

​

1) Maintenance B – rebuild the highway with few changes. 

2) Reduced Freeway - make the highway slightly smaller (3 lanes in each direction – some sections are 3 lanes today and others are 4 lanes). Union Park believes that this design, if pursued, should be coupled with slower design and posted speeds and improved transit.  

3) Reconfigure Freeway - make the highway one lane bigger (4 lanes each direction with wider lanes and shoulders). Community members, neighborhoods, and the Minneapolis and Saint Paul City councils have expressed overwhelming OPPOSITION to expanding the highway. We note that we continue to object to the misleading title of this option, as it is an expansion of highway lanes (3 to 4 in some areas) AND an increase in the highway footprint (wider lanes and shoulders in many places) -not a mere reconfiguration.

 

What is not on this list is an At-Grade Boulevard option.  Despite overwhelming community support for studying such an approach, MnDOT proposes NOT to study it further. 

 

Make your voice heard during this critical time!  Right now is one of the few times that the public has a formal opportunity to provide input into this project.  Public comments create an official record that documents community preferences and concerns. This is also your chance to share the options you want studied, your goals for the corridor and concerns about MnDOT's planning process. The public comment period runs from January 6 through March 9, 2026. There are three ways to participate:

1. Online comment form: Visit the project webpage to fill out the online form. https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/rethinking-i94/surveys/public-comment 

2. Attend a public meeting: You can fill out a comment form or speak with a court reporter at the in-person meeting on January 29 and virtually on February 4 and February 19. https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/rethinking-i94/news_feed/meetings

3. Paper comment form: Pick up printed forms at select library locations, including the Merriam Park Library and MnDOT offices, then complete and mail to MnDOT.

 

For more information on the project and for ideas on topics you might address, 

• Check the document below. 

• Attend the UPDC Transportation Committee meeting on Monday, February 9 at 6:30 p.m. and/or 

• Attend a community presentation and open house at the Merriam Park Library at 6:30 pm on Wednesday, February 18th. See the UPDC website for details.   

 

---------------------------------------

More information from Union Park District Council about MnDOT’s Rethinking I-94 planning process and recommendations.

 

UPDC urges you to make your voice heard during the official public comment period which runs from January 6 to March 9, 2026.  

 

Describe how I-94 currently impacts you, your family, or your community. For example: 

• Access: How you use I-94 and what other routes you also use. 

• Community barriers: Does the highway separate you from neighbors, schools, businesses, or services?

• Health impacts: Do you have concerns about the health risks of living, working, or recreating near the highway where the air is polluted?  

• Noise pollution: Does traffic noise affect your quality of life and ability to enjoy outdoor spaces?

• Safety concerns: Including on roads that connect to the highway. 

• Economic barriers: Does the highway limit housing development, reduce property values, reduce the number of local small businesses?

Some ideas of what you might say about MnDOT’s goals and design options. 

• Why do you support or oppose expanding or narrowing the highway?

• Do you want the At Grade or other boulevard options studied?

• What is your vision for what this corridor could become?

• Goals for the project you support, for example: 

  • Reduced emissions, more green space, better stormwater management.

  • Safety for everyone: Lower traffic speeds, protected pedestrian crossings, improved infrastructure for biking/walking, fewer people injured in crashes.

  • Quality transit in the I-94 corridor and in nearby neighborhoods. 

  • Racial justice and repair: Address the historic damage to communities when the highway was built, especially to Rondo, but also to Union Park and other neighborhoods. 

  • Reconnection: Reconnecting neighborhoods divided for over 60 years by the highway.

  • Economic opportunity: Create or reduce land for housing and businesses, tax base impacts, local jobs.

​

UPDC believes there have been major problems with this process and we encourage you to mention one or more of them in your comments!

UPDC will mention these elements in its comment letter. 

1. The process seems designed to justify a predetermined outcome. Rather than genuinely exploring alternatives, MnDOT appears focused on traffic congestion and rebuilding and expanding the highway. 

2. The decision to remove at-grade options was political, not technical. Despite overwhelming community support (as evidenced by statements made by the  Policy Advisory Committee, etc.) MnDOT dismissed thousands of residents and 30 organizations as merely "disappointed that their preferred alternative didn't advance."

3. The traffic models are flawed, and MnDOT must fix its flawed traffic models before making decisions. Even the Metropolitan Council identified key problems: the models don't account for mode shift (people switching from driving to transit, biking, or walking), don't reflect land use changes that would lead to travel behavior change, and don't accurately capture traffic diversion or evaporation. 

4. MnDOT worked with the Trump Administration to remove environmental justice, community health, racial equity, and climate considerations from the formal environmental review process. These should be restored in order to comply with still-applicable Minnesota laws that govern the project. 

5. Pause the project until meaningful community engagement can occur. 

 

Resources:  

1. MnDOT’s official Scoping document for the I-94 project (91 pages)  

2. Community Organizations comment letter on Draft Purpose and Need for the project.  Pages. (October 27, 2021) 

3. City of Saint Paul Resolution: 23-164 (February 3, 2021) on text tab

4. City of Minneapolis Resolution #2024R-292 (September 28, 2024)

5. UPDC website: Home | Union Park District Council

6. UPDC letters sent to MNDOT: Jan 15th 2025, Nov 25th 2024

7. Streets MN article about the history of the highway in UPDC

8. Our Streets Website: Twin Cities Boulevard - Our Streets 

*Thank you to Our Streets for some of the text used.

​​

​​