Beyond “Rethinking”: A Call to Repair Communities and Transform the Corridor
Both the City of Minneapolis and the City of Saint Paul submitted formal comments on MnDOT’s Rethinking I-94 Draft Scoping Decision Document as part of this year’s public comment period. Together, their message is clear: the future of I-94 cannot be a status quo rebuild of harm.
MnDOT has framed this process as “Rethinking” I-94, yet has removed at-grade alternatives from further analysis. Both cities are signaling that what is needed now is not a conventional highway rebuild, but a process centered on reconnection, transformation, and repair.
Importantly, both cities use the word repair – but in different ways.
Minneapolis rejects repairing the highway itself:
“The City Council of Minneapolis continues to support project alternatives that move people more efficiently, more sustainably and with less space; and strongly opposes the repair or reconstruction of I-94 in its current form and rejects any freeway expansion or any right of way expansion within its boundaries.”
Saint Paul, meanwhile, calls for repairing the damage caused by the highway:
“Cumulatively these comments are based on the principle that it is simply not enough for MnDOT to acknowledge past harm. Rethinking 1-94 must actively work to repair and mitigate the damage done by the original construction of this stretch of Interstate 94 through Saint Paul.”
-Office of Mayor Kaohly Her
This distinction matters. Neither city is calling to preserve the status quo freeway. Both are calling for a different future—one that repairs communities, not highways.
Naming the Harm: How I-94 Divided Communities
Minneapolis’s comment letter makes this explicit by calling for at-grade alternatives to move forward into the next stage of the process, with deeper evaluation of neighborhood impacts, public health, equity, and connectivity. Minneapolis names the role of racist housing covenants, displacement, and destruction of community institutions like St. James AME Church, Seven Corners Library, and the Key Club in Cedar-Riverside and other communities.
Saint Paul similarly centers the need for repair, stating that:
“This is not just a construction project, it is a substantial mitigation project.”
That framing underscores that the harms caused by the original freeway construction require intentional, corrective investment rather than standard delivery methods.
Saint Paul also makes clear that the city “cannot be held financially responsible for correcting past harms,” calling for a rethinking of typical MnDOT cost participation policies in order to achieve “meaningful and transformative changes to the corridor.” Instead, Saint Paul advocates that the project should include meaningful and transformative investment, including support for local businesses and economic opportunities that are accessible to minority- and women-owned businesses.
The Damage Isn’t History, It’s Still Happening
I-94 was built through intentional harm to Black, Indigenous, immigrant, and working-class communities like Cedar-Riverside and Rondo. But this is not only a historical issue.
The ongoing health impacts, like asthma, pollution, and premature death, were highlighted in Minneapolis’ letter. Saint Paul names the physical and psychological barriers of the existing crossing, which is unsafe, uninviting, and disconnected.
Today, communities along the corridor are still living with:
- Toxic air
- Unsafe crossings
- Fragmented neighborhood
The foundation of the highway itself is unjust. Mobility must be about more than moving cars. It must be about healing the divide.
What Both Cities Are Saying: No Expansion, No Status Quo
Minneapolis opposes the reconstruction in its current form and rejects any expansion. Saint Paul City calls for minimizing the corridor footprint and maximizing land use for community needs such as housing, local businesses, parks, and public-serving spaces.
The shared direction of both cities is to move people through the corridor with reconnection, less harm, and greater efficiency. Reconnection is central to that vision.
Designing for People, Not Just Cars
The City of Saint Paul calls for rebuilding the street grid, improving both the quality and frequency of crossings, and designing infrastructure that feels safe and accessible. Minneapolis City reinforces this by prioritizing walkability, transit, and multimodal access.
Reclaiming Land for Community Use
Both letters highlight the opportunity to reclaim land and return it to support housing, community spaces, tax base, and local economies. Minneapolis notes that I-94 displaced development across more than 284 acres. Saint Paul calls for shrinking the highway footprint and repurposing land for housing, green space, and economic development.
Standing together, these positions point toward a multi-modal boulevard spanning Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Both cities are calling for solutions that repurpose land use, reconnect neighborhoods, reduce pollution and driving, and support economic reinvestment.
Climate Commitments Require a Different Path
Both cities make it clear that climate commitments demand a different path.
Reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving air quality, and shifting to walking, biking, and transit are core city goals. Rebuilding I-94 would directly undermine these commitments.
We cannot meet climate goals by rebuilding a highway.
Accountability from MnDOT Starts Now
Both cities are demanding accountability from MnDOT. Minneapolis calls out the “frustration and confusion” caused by eliminating alternatives too early, without fully evaluating equity, environmental, and community impacts. Saint Paul pushes for specific commitments, not vague promises. The community has heard “potential” before. What’s needed now are clear, binding plans.
Both cities also center on economic repair.
Minneapolis highlights the potential to grow the tax base and fund public services through land reuse. Saint Paul makes clear that the project must repair past economic harm and that the city should not bear the cost of fixing it.
Expectations for the Future of I-94
Both cities make clear that this process must create equitable opportunity and deliver direct benefits to the communities most impacted by I-94.
City of Saint Paul states:
“The project must develop resources and provide opportunities for residents and businesses to be included in the delivery of the project and to support local hiring for the project. These economic opportunities must be accessible to all residents and businesses, especially minority- and women-owned businesses, and not result in further disparities in contracting and procurement.”
The City of Minneapolis similarly emphasizes that the project must generate community benefit, calling for partnership across agencies to:
“Study and implement proactive anti-displacement policies and reparations programs along the project corridor and evaluate opportunities to repurpose highway land for community benefit.”
Community Must Lead, Not Just Be Heard
Significantly, both the City of Minneapolis and the City of Saint Paul call for this project to be community-led.
Saint Paul emphasizes co-creation, transparency, and rebuilding trust. Minneapolis also stresses that future decisions must be made in partnership with surrounding residents and businesses, with transparency and trust at the center of the process. MnDOT needs to provide opportunities with clear timelines and iterative updates.
Community is not for input. Community must be the decision maker.
The Line Is Drawn: No Rebuild
The direction is clear: no rebuild, but instead a focus on reconnecting and repairing communities.
The Twin Cities are more aligned than ever on not rebuilding the highway and on calling for reconnection and repair. MnDOT must advance transformative alternatives, fully study the boulevard options, and center community-led solutions. Twin Cities Boulevard is the next step toward a more just and connected future.