The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) reconvened Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) members on Tuesday for the first meeting since January, at which the agency announced its intention to remove the at-grade options from consideration in the Rethinking I-94 project.
There has been increasing pressure from elected officials, members of the Rethinking I-94 PAC, and the public to restore the at-grade options in the next stage of the project process and to fix flaws in the evaluation process and the criteria used to determine which alternatives are studied.
- At the last PAC meeting in January, over one hundred testifiers rallied in support of continuing to study at-grade boulevard options.
- The PAC meeting on Tuesday, December 9, was the first since members of the Minnesota Senate voted unanimously to include language in the 2025 Omnibus bill that would strengthen the PAC’s ability to represent their communities and play a meaningful role in the project process, and address some of the procedural issues with MnDOT’s Purpose and Need Statement for the project.
- Around 3,000 community members and 30 community organizations signed an open letter calling on Commissioner Daubenburger and Governor Walz to restore the at-grade options in the next stage of the project process and to fix flaws in the evaluation process and the criteria used to determine which alternatives are studied. Community members delivered the petition at an in-person Rethinking I-94 Meeting on November 6.
MnDOT is Listening—and Ignoring
MnDOT started the meeting by minimizing the people and organizations that signed the community letter to restore the study of at-grade options in MnDOT’s environmental review process.
They dismissed the call of residents and community members concerned with public health, environmental justice, climate action, racial equity, air quality improvements, economic opportunity, tax base growth, and transit and active transportation as merely people “disappointed that their preferred alternative didn’t advance.” This framing ignores a fundamental reality: these are the people who live, work, attend school, and build their lives along this highway corridor—exactly the stakeholders whose voices should carry the most weight in shaping its future.
Watch the public comment period portion of the meeting to hear the majority of attendees vocally oppose the elimination of at-grade options.
New Renderings, Old Tricks
What highway trench? Just tree-lined frontage roads!
MnDOT created additional renderings of street improvements on frontage roads that include bike lanes and sidewalks, attempting to signal responsiveness to community feedback on the alternatives. They also stated that additional land could be ceded back to the city to support the tax base and development. However, these cosmetic gestures fail to address the fundamental issue: MnDOT has refused to genuinely consider the wide range of alternatives that would truly meet community needs and the local tax base.
Impacted community members are not asking for bike lanes on frontage roads next to a highway trench. Residents and elected officials want to see continued study of topics and designs that meet health, equity, land use, and other real solutions for the future of this corridor.
MnDOT Continues to Dismiss Elected Officials’ Calls for True Advisory Power
MnDOT attempted to address the ongoing demands from elected officials for democratic accountability within the PAC—a body designed to engage elected officials and the communities they represent. In practice, however, the PAC has devolved into symbolic consultation at best, where nearly every response from the Commissioner, the project staff, and WSB consultants amounts to either incoherent rambling or a dismissive “your comment has been duly noted.”
In response to specific calls for elected officials to weigh in and vote on preferred alternatives, Commissioner Daubenberger announced a compromise: elected officials would be allowed to designate their preferred priorities with a Zoom poll for consideration in the next phase (at which the at-grade options are not currently on the table). These priorities included high-level themes like air quality and green space—nearly all of which were already established community priorities.
Yet, despite the meeting occurring almost a year after the last PAC meeting, the poll was not distributed in advance and remained informal, denying elected officials any meaningful opportunity to weigh in or consult with their staff on its content. This falls far short of what elected officials mean when they call for representation.
MnDOT Cannot Seem to Provide Ample Meeting Notice
MnDOT scheduled the meeting with little notice, and at a time that competed with other meetings, including the City of Minneapolis Committee of the Whole meeting. While MnDOT offered public comment, the agency gave the public less than a week’s notice about the meeting. The agency’s pattern of irregular meetings and short notice allows MnDOT to advance its process quietly and without meaningful scrutiny. Critical questions about health impacts, environmental justice, and air quality remain unaddressed, while alternatives that could address these concerns are being systematically excluded from consideration.
Elected officials noted this concern during the meeting, stating that it was difficult for them to attend on short notice during a busy time of year. Additionally, this makes it very difficult for residents and community members to engage with the project process.
A Hostile Federal Government
The Trump Administration’s changes to environmental review emerged as a significant topic of discussion, with many elected officials acknowledging that the federal government’s posture toward reparative projects and multi-modal investments has become a substantial obstacle. Given the current political landscape, it seems unlikely that MnDOT will be able to build or initiate a project of this scope in the coming years, much less secure federal funding to support it. Abandoning formal legal consideration of our values (articulated in many state and regional plans, visions, and Charlie Zelle’s apology to Rondo) and environmental justice commitments for a project with no viable path forward is not worth the risk.
This has already happened on the Blue Line Extension and Highway 252’s environmental review, and the city of Brooklyn Center passed a unanimous resolution opposing the change. It’s time for MnDOT to stand up for our values and not give lip service to the community’s lived experience.
Restore the Options or Pause the Project
A community member asked what else MnDOT needed from elected officials and community members to restore the at-grade options, citing many examples of opposition. The answer appears to be clear: MnDOT intends to move forward despite public outcry.
It’s time to pause this project. Whether due to federal hostility, lack of meaningful community engagement, or MnDOT’s refusal to genuinely consider alternatives that address health and equity concerns, continuing with this process is not working. The agency is only interested in rebuilding and expanding at the great cost of impacted community members, taxpayers, and our climate.
A pause would allow time for a reset—one that centers the voices of those who live along this corridor and ensures that any future work truly serves the communities most affected. MnDOT should use this opportunity to study a broader range of corridor alternatives, in line with the City of Minneapolis’s unanimous resolution in 2024.
Preparing for the 60-Day Public Comment Period
The next step in MnDOT’s process is a formal public comment period on the Rethinking I-94 Scoping Decision Document. The public comment period will run for 60 days, from January 6th to March 9th, 2026.
While it’s clear that MnDOT has not been genuinely responsive to community members and elected officials, making your voice heard during this period remains critical for several reasons:
- Your comment becomes part of the official record, just like the community voices who fought the freeway in the 1960s.
- Your comments demonstrate the breadth and depth of community opposition and the desire to continue to study considerations important to you and alternatives that actually address your concerns.
- Your comment helps your elected officials advocate for continued study of transformative solutions on your behalf.
- Your comment creates accountability by documenting MnDOT’s failures to address your legitimate concerns.
Your comment matters—not because MnDOT has earned trust in this process, but because silence allows them to claim community consent where none exists.
MnDOT will hold two events around the public comment period. Stay tuned for information on how to write an effective public comment.
In-person Public Meeting
January 29th, 2026, from 5:30-8:30 p.m.
The Wilder Foundation
451 Lexington Parkway, St. Paul, MN
Virtual Public Meeting
February 4th, 2026, from 12:00-1:30 p.m.
Zoom Registration Required