Minnesota Then
On November 1, 1945, the Pioneer Press offered support for a new highway—one accessible to the University of Minnesota and designed to offer Minneapolis residents easier access to the State Capitol. Highway department officials agreed, feeling St. Anthony Avenue, a straight and familiar line running parallel to University and Marshall from downtown to the western city limit, was the best route for the new highway. It was direct, close to major commercial arteries, and, in their view, most capable of carrying large volumes of traffic.
St. Paul’s eighty-two-year-old “founder of city planning,” George Herrold, city planner since 1920 and regarded in local circles as an unbending idealist, immediately voiced concerns. One of the region’s earliest professional planners and long a critic of “slash-and-cut” street widening, Herrold felt the city owed its neighborhoods better. If built to the scale considered by officials, he believed the proposed route would cut the life out of the long-established Prospect Park and Rondo neighborhoods. He saw it as the city’s civic duty to protect those residents, many of whom had deep roots in the area.
The Highway Department’s route ran south of the State Capitol and surrounding government buildings, effectively separating them from downtown St. Paul. Herrold considered the move a severe engineering blunder. He couldn’t believe officials hadn’t considered the economic ramifications of “placing … hundreds of employees of the Capitol and highway department … outside of the commercial and recreational districts” of downtown. To him, tying civic buildings to the center of the city seemed more functional than symbolic.
While Herrold agreed the freeway would carry more vehicles more quickly, he was adamant the automobile shouldn’t dominate cities. The St. Anthony Route, he warned, would become nothing more than a “gigantic ditch … and an unwelcome concentrator of exhaust fumes.”
He viewed his role as that of an independent advisor to both the community and his political superiors. Beholden to neither, he believed educating both—presenting the pros and cons of multiple options—was essential planning practice. The chosen freeway route, decided on with minimal impact studies and public debate, showed incredible bias. To Herrold, it reflected the Highway Department’s growing preference for speed over people.
In 1945, Herrold proposed an alternative which came to be known as “The Northern Route.” He recommended a four-lane roadway that ran a mile north of University Avenue along existing railroad lines north of today’s Pierce Butler Route. Relying on decades of experience and his understanding of the city's neighborhoods and economy, he believed putting the freeway next to rail lines would significantly minimize disruption to neighborhoods and businesses. The alignment also passed north of the Capitol grounds, keeping government offices tied directly to downtown.
Herrold’s route ranged from three-quarters to one-quarter of a mile north of the St. Anthony Route. It bypassed the Rondo neighborhood completely and only minimally affected Prospect Park. And though it would add a small amount of time to automobile commutes in and out of the city, the difference would be no more than a couple of minutes. Having drivers go slightly out of their way, he argued, was preferable to displacing established neighborhoods.
By the late 1940s, the Highway Department had effectively settled on the St. Anthony alignment, leaving Herrold’s Northern Route without meaningful support inside City Hall. City officials never seriously considered Herrold’s plan. Their goal was to move as much traffic as possible off city streets, and studies showed the majority of future freeway users lived south of University Avenue. The additional travel time from St. Anthony Avenue over the Northern Route meant Herrold’s option would carry less traffic than their plan. Minneapolis leaders, already envisioning connections to the new Hennepin–Lyndale interchange, favored a southern alignment as well, as did University of Minnesota administrators who wanted direct access to their campus. Herrold, despite his stature, found himself outnumbered.
His Northern Route also added to projected traffic levels on connecting streets. The increased use meant those streets would need more frequent repairs—costing money the city didn’t have. Highway officials felt convenience and capacity trumped the plan’s negative social impacts. The Automobile Age, in their view, demanded bold lines on a map, not compromises.
Passage of President Eisenhower’s 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act meant the federal government would bear ninety percent of the cost of building the new highway. Herrold’s route did not qualify for federal financial support. City leaders deviated little from their original plan. Interstate 94 between the Twin Cities was built along the St. Anthony Route. Rondo, which Herrold had tried to protect, would be cut in half.
At 2:30 PM on Monday, December 9, 1968, after years of planning and nearly a decade of construction, the Twin Cities were linked with the dedication of the $80 million stretch of I-94. A coalition of leaders drove from St. Paul and Minneapolis and met in front of Highway 280. After a short ceremony (attended by approximately 200 people), representatives of each city tied ribbons together to signify their linking. By 4:00 PM Interstate 94 between St. Paul and Minneapolis was officially open.