Case Study #1: Interstate

Case Study #1: Interstate – 94

This case examines the questions associated with the chosen route of I-94 in the central corridor between Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

Think about the following questions as you read the background material for this case.

· What other options where available for the route?

· What led to the choice of the current route?

· Who were against this choice?

· What policy changes have been made as a result of the planning of I-94 through the central corridor?

· What possibilities are there for improvements to the central corridor?

The Planning and Construction of I-94 in the Central Corridor

Please read the handout that contains the first chapter titled “The Innercity Freeway” from Alan A. Altshuler’s City Planning Process: A Political Analysis. This was handed out in class on Wednesday, September 8^th.

In the years following World War II the United States endured a period of economic prosperity. Economic growth allowed consumers to purchase the, previously unaffordable, automobile. Increased numbers of automobiles caused severe congestion throughout a number of U.S cities. Between 1947 and 1950 automobile registrations in the Twin Cities increased 58% (The City Planning Process pg 21). Besides being greater in number, the automobile led to congested city streets by promoting urban sprawl. As a result of urban sprawl, increased numbers of suburban dwellers filled city streets with automobiles as opposed to commuting by public transportation.

To solve the congestion problem, St. Paul officials realized that they needed to update the current street system. Previously, city officials dealt with increased congestion by increasing the number of lanes and/or turning lanes. However, increasing lanes required the purchase of property and the removal of infrastructure. This was extremely expensive and often removed the traffic generator when the infrastructure was removed. At the time, freeways, as we have come to call them today, were taking the nation by storm.

Freeways consisted of gradual curving, limited access, elimination of cross-traffic, and the elimination of direct access commercial and residential dwellings. Freeways were said to be able to carry 2 times more traffic per lane than the previous city street and do it in a manner that is faster and safer. Freeway plans where developed connecting downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, but it wasn’t until the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was implemented that it became certain a freeway would be constructed.

The Federal Aid Highway Act called for the construction of 40,000 miles of freeway throughout the country. The act stated that the federal government would provide 90% of the funding and the states provide the remaining 10%. With the construction of the freeway a foregone conclusion, the next step was to determine which route it would follow.

St. Paul officials had determined that the route should follow what was then known as St. Anthony Avenue. This route was determined because it was in the vicinity of the four main traffic generators in the Twin Cities. It was also chosen because it paralleled the University Avenue, which was the main route between the cities.

George Herrold, St. Paul’s Chief Planning Engineer until 1952, strongly opposed the construction of a freeway along this route. He proposed a plan later known as the “Northern Route” which lied about a mile to the north of the St. Anthony Route. Herrold stated that the Northern Route, because of its close proximity to an existing railroad line, would not displace a great amount of people nor would it divide them socially. He also opposed the St. Anthony Route because it ran through the center of both Minneapolis and St. Paul. In St. Paul the route divided government buildings and a nearby commercial zone, thereby separating the two zones. He believed it would be foolish to divert thru traffic into the already congested downtown areas. Despite Herrold’s urging, St. Paul and state officials would not budge on the proposed St. Anthony Route.

With the St. Anthony Route all but set in stone, concerned residents began speak out. Nearly one seventh of St. Paul’s African-American residents would be displaced by the freeway. African-American community leaders concluded that it would be nearly impossible to divert the freeway, so they devised a list of actions they expected government officials to comply with:

Help displaced residents find adequate housing
Provide proper compensation
Construct a depressed freeway to enhance aesthetics

The displacement of the African-American community members was unique because there were not many options available to them. Caucasian-American communities would neither sell homes to them nor rent property to them. For this reason officials feared that the African-American community would become over-crowded. In the end, only the second and third actions were followed through.

The Prospect Park Neighborhood in Minneapolis was also fearful that the freeway would provide negative implications. Prospect Park residents feared that the freeway would cause the middle class occupants to leave and be replaced with low-income residents. They claimed that having a low-class neighborhood within close proximity to the University of Minnesota would make the University unappealing to students and faculty. The community had one request: that the freeway be placed over an existing railroad spur; however, limited funding disallowed this idea.

St. Paul’s upper and middle class neighborhoods also voiced concerns that the freeway would increase traffic on nearby city streets leading to the freeway. They also disliked the severance that a freeway running through the middle of their community would cause.

Downtown St. Paul business people were also displeased with the location of the freeway. They wanted the freeway diverted to vacant land that St. Paul had just recently sold to Sears Roebuck. The desire to move the freeway to the vacant land was mainly motivated by the desire to oust Sears Roebuck from the area as a means of limiting competition. St. Paul business people also feared, just as Herrold had, that the placement of the freeway through the downtown area would deter people from the central business district.

In conclusion of the freeway development process highway engineers obtained these main policy propositions:

In this case, and similar cases, constructing a new freeway is more cost effective than improving a city street.
Do not confuse the wishes of an individual group with the wishes of the public as a whole.
It is preferable not to build through residential areas or far from areas of traffic generation.

If a residential community must be dispersed

i. Provide fair compensation

ii. Allow time for residents to relocate

iii. Provide existing residents with perks to help lessen the impact

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/swkly/1999-00/sw1299.pdf

Please read Session Weekly from March 1999, in which there is discussion of George H. Herrold’s opposition to the proposed, and ultimately chosen route for Interstate 94 through the central corridor. It is found on pages 4 and 17 on the link above. George H. Herrold was the former chief city planner for Saint Paul at the time of the planning for Interstate 94.

The Future of the Central Corridor

As part of Metropolitan Council’s Transit 2020 Plan, two feasibility studies for improving transit and transportation conditions of central corridor are done recently. Central Corridor Transit Study considers three options; baseline (build nothing option), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on University Avenue, and Light Rail Transit (LRT) on University Avenue. Central Corridor Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study, which was once part of the previous mentioned study, considers technical possibilities of providing commuter rail service between the twin cities using the existing rail tracks.

Central Corridor Transit Study:

1) BaseLine – In this alternative a marginal improvement of 10 percent in the current transit services are proposed to keep up with regions transportation needs.

2) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – In this alternative a rapid bus route is proposed on University Avenue. An exclusive bus-way is proposed for this alternative to allow the busses to operative with less travel time.

3) Light Rail Transit (LRT) – In this alternative a light rail is proposed along University Avenue and Washington Avenue connecting the downtowns of the twin cities.

Details of this study can be found at the following link.

http://www.centralcorridor.org

According to the assessment of the planners University Avenue LRT performed best out of these three alternatives.

Central Corridor Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study:

Studied two lines connecting downtown St.Paul and downtown Minneapolis. According to the study commuter rail service between the twin cities is feasible at an attractive level of service. This study also suggested planning the commuter service in coordination with other existing and potential transit facilities in and around the twin cities area.

Below are some photos of the construction of Interstate 94.