This was an interesting read today. I was struck by the lack of acknowledgment of tourist traffic headed up to 61 and beyond. Part of me loves this idea, another part cringes. This might make Two Harbors traffic seem like nothing. I would probably split off at Cloquet to take 53 and then cut East to Finland in the future if this were to move forward. We would miss our traditional lunch in Duluth and our big shopping spree at Marine General, but there's not much I despise more than sitting in traffic.

I understand some of the benefits and the downsides.

But I think it's absurd that the whole reason he came up with the idea was to get rid of the freeway so walkers and bikers could cross. You're telling me you'd rather have people walking and biking across all that traffic at lights and crosswalks???

No, leave the freeway and use sidewalks on bridges or specified pedestrian bridges or trails under the freeway. That's how you keep people safe...not everyone at the same level crossing at the same spot. Vehicles are on the road, peds are over or under that road

There are always dreamers. When it comes to large scale transportation the state should consider who's taxes are paying the way and what is truly the safest answer for all.

I drive that stretch of freeway at least three days a week and sometimes multiple times in a day.

It’s a wonderful idea and looks beautiful. We would all love to drive lazily down parkways with water, trees, and people gleefully frolicking and dashing to and fro in happiness.

It’s gonna piss a lot of people off being stuck in stop and go traffic due to the bottle neck and a stop light in the middle of the freeway, err,, parkway. I’d hate to be a pedestrian trying to cross that intersection!

Our freeways are an engineering marvel as well as a disastrous wound through neighborhoods and municipalities.

Tom

So it sounds like what he is proposing is taking it back to what is used to be like before the early 90's when they opened it up to where it ends now. If I recall they spent hundreds of millions on the tunnels with the parks above them and adding the extra lanes, etc. Not sure it's a good idea to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more to revert back to the way it was before. The city doesn't have the money to fund it. It's not like it would bring in extra tourism dollars to pay for it. I worked over in Wisconsin but as soon as the project was complete I bought a house over in Lester Park (East Duluth), it sure made the commute nice.

So this is what it used to be. When you headed north, you'd end up going through downtown Duluth. 35 got extended because it was a traffic nightmare and pedestrians were getting hit on superior street. It would take you forever to get through town.

Additionally, there are plenty of places to cross walking or biking. The dude was walking down Lake Avenue, there's literally a park and path and footbridge that starts right there. All he had to do was turn left and walk under the big blue archway for the lakewalk. It starts on the corner of lake and superior st. The whole top of the first tunnel is a big giant park with pathways down to the lake walk and canal park.

My opinion is - this is a stupid idea.

Speckled: "So this is what it used to be. When you headed north, you'd end up going through downtown Duluth. 35 got extended because it was a traffic nightmare and pedestrians were getting hit on superior street. It would take you forever to get through town.


Additionally, there are plenty of places to cross walking or biking. The dude was walking down Lake Avenue, there's literally a park and path and footbridge that starts right there. All he had to do was turn left and walk under the big blue archway for the lakewalk. It starts on the corner of lake and superior st. The whole top of the first tunnel is a big giant park with pathways down to the lake walk and canal park.


My opinion is - this is a stupid idea."

I have to agree. I mostly skimmed through the story but I saw no mention of the multiple ways pedestrians can already cross 35 without crosswalks. Of course it's never a good story when you include all the facts. I am all for change when it makes sense but this makes zero sense. The current pedestrian bridges are very "inclusive".

My thoughts mirror others - this guy is too young to recall the way it used to be.

That area used to be the bowery district. If you really want to bring it back to the way it used to be you would build saloons, brothels and boarding houses. Rent by the week or month.

As a Duluth resident, his concern is his community, not the 612ers coming up for a weekend away. I don't fault him for thinking big.

As a 612er I don't like the idea, but not sure my opinion outweighs the local resident.

If traffic is the concern, and thinking big, I would reroute 35 around Proctor, backside of Hermantown, behind the airport and meet up somewhere on 61. Duluth can do what it likes with the old 35.

I just lived through the 494 and Hwy 100 interchange, the 35W bridge and lanes added change, the 35W and 494 change in Minneapolis. These changes took many years of planing, rezoning, buying out business and housing in the way, moving infrastructure like sewer, water, communication fiber optic lines, before any shovel hits the ground. Then after the work began it took 6-8 years to finish the 494/100 job. They moved the same road as they were working on it many times. They have to continue to travel on the same roads that need new lanes, bridges, new infrastructure. If this pipe dream ever gets the funding, the planning and work needed to complete it will not be done in my lifetime. And one more thing, I pity the people that live in this area and will be forced to be in the endless construction zone. The city planers should have anticipated the growth in this area and rerouted the highway decade’s ago. 35w could have gone west of the downtown and hooked up with 61.

A buddy of mine lives in Duluth and tells me that most avoid I-35 in town, but only if you are staying in town. The amount of traffic that comes in from the surrounding area requires a freeway. Getting rid of the freeway doesn't get rid of the traffic, it just makes it worse. Can you imagine going to any city with a freeway that actually gets used and having anyone with an ounce of common sense agreeing that getting rid of the freeway would help?

Locals may not like the freeway because they never use it themselves, but what would the city be without it? Plus, is the freeway really only about the locals? Shouldn't the fact that they are cutting off access to the north shore be a concern for anyone that lives or works up there? This just seems incredibly short-sighted and selfish.

It's a dumb idea that should never get passed anything more than a thought experiment.

These ideas come around every now and again, championed by visionaries who often lack an understanding of how complicated and expensive things can get.

These proposals often aren't about transportation per se, but rather have another agenda under the surface. As the linked article points out, there is a group in St. Paul that is pushing forth a similar idea. They want to cover Interstate 94 for several miles through St. Paul and create a park-like area to, in part, right the injustices perpetrated on the community when the interstate was put in. Minneapolis took out car lanes from the major north-south surface streets into/out-of downtown and put in bike lanes, with a buffer. Minneapolis could have used the streets adjacent for the bike lanes, which had less traffic and were safer for bikes. But the plan wasn't really about bikes- it was statement against cars. I'm not saying that the St. Paul or Minneapolis or Duluth ideas aren't worthwhile sentiments, but they are not primarily about transportation. So, let's just be intellectually honest. Since I-35 is already an established thoroughfare, and a very expensive one, transportation efficiency should be concern number one.

This young man represents the "Duluth Waterfront Collective." Per his LinkedIn statement: "The Duluth Waterfront Collective is a group of planners, designers, thinkers, and more aimed at promoting a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable vision for Duluth's waterfront areas while building up community engagement around built-environment issues." In this mission statement, it appears as if transportation efficiency is not the primary driving force in the vision. It should be. If I-35 wasn't already established, I'd say that this is a noble goal that may be worthy of consideration. However, a huge part of Duluth was changed and tunneled to create an effective (IMHO) bypass around downtown. It's already there. Just leave it and find other ways to promote "equity."

End of rant.

Mike

flopnfolds: "As a Duluth resident, his concern is his community, not the 612ers coming up for a weekend away. I don't fault him for thinking big.


As a 612er I don't like the idea, but not sure my opinion outweighs the local resident.


If traffic is the concern, and thinking big, I would reroute 35 around Proctor, backside of Hermantown, behind the airport and meet up somewhere on 61. Duluth can do what it likes with the old 35. "

I live just outside of Duluth and we along with umpteen other locals use that freeway every day. It's not just used by tourists heading north. It's the major throughfare of the city and it's busy (relatively speaking) every day of the week.

The water front collective has been in place for awhile now and is largely supported. Developing the waterfront is a positive thing...taking the freeway out is a terrible idea. The two being connected, i.e. waterfront development and freeway removal...I don't get it. The freeway doesn't need to go away to develop that area. There's huge opportunity down there by bayfront and the aquarium.

I live in Duluth and I love the freeway. I wish it continued through the Lakeside neighborhood to Hwy 61.

Speckled: "

flopnfolds: "As a Duluth resident, his concern is his community, not the 612ers coming up for a weekend away. I don't fault him for thinking big.



As a 612er I don't like the idea, but not sure my opinion outweighs the local resident.



If traffic is the concern, and thinking big, I would reroute 35 around Proctor, backside of Hermantown, behind the airport and meet up somewhere on 61. Duluth can do what it likes with the old 35. "

I live just outside of Duluth and we along with umpteen other locals use that freeway every day. It's not just used by tourists heading north. It's the major throughfare of the city and it's busy (relatively speaking) every day of the week.


The water front collective has been in place for awhile now and is largely supported. Developing the waterfront is a positive thing...taking the freeway out is a terrible idea. The two being connected, i.e. waterfront development and freeway removal...I don't get it. The freeway doesn't need to go away to develop that area. There's huge opportunity down there by bayfront and the aquarium."

I understand locals use it everyday, being redeveloped more as a parkway for the local residents wouldn't prevent it from being used as a major thoroughfare between West Duluth and Duluth East. At this point the Waterfront is developed enough that decoupling the interstate with a thoroughfare would likely have no impact on development. Tourists who want to go to the waterfront would still be able to do so. I am not arguing for the removal of the interstate, but as related to this original post, rather than turning the interstate into a parkway, think bigger and rereoute the interstate.

It turns out the person featured in the article is actually from Minneapolis and has a clear agenda to remove freeways everywhere. Claims to be on the "freeway destruction crew"

CatchMe: "I live in Duluth and I love the freeway. I wish it continued through the Lakeside neighborhood to Hwy 61."

Yes indeed. I35 should go all the way to the split at Brighton Beach. The idea of removing the freeway and forcing traffic on to Superior Street is ludicrous. Want more access to the waterfront, build a couple of more bridges. An order of magnitude cheaper ad a more reasonable solution. The guy who authored that has never lived through Duluth tourist traffic "just passing through." It would be worse than going through Two harbors by an order of magnitude (again).

President Eisenhour gets credit for developing the Interstate plan. 40 billion dollars in the late 1950's was to be used to connect major cities with a belt looping around city cores. This was passed as part of the defense needs for military transport.

It all turned into a blessing for those who now get to go all the way into the downtown area as added to the original idea and can directly be tied to the development of suburbia in many areas.

As for as Duluth is concerned, I do not know why the bypass of the town was not used as a plan as in many other areas for "smaller" towns.

For the record, the largest North American city without direct town center access is Vancouver.

tumblehome: "That area used to be the bowery district. If you really want to bring it back to the way it used to be you would build saloons, brothels and boarding houses. Rent by the week or month.

"

Saloons, brothels and boarding houses. Are you telling me Duluth used to be NorthVegas? Lets Go!

JimmyJustice: "

tumblehome: "That area used to be the bowery district. If you really want to bring it back to the way it used to be you would build saloons, brothels and boarding houses. Rent by the week or month.


"

Saloons, brothels and boarding houses. Are you telling me Duluth used to be NorthVegas? Lets Go!"

It would be way cool if one of our Duluth members with a drone could replicate this view today.

Not a drone, but used Google Earth to try and grab the same frame.

That’s pretty cool seeing the old and new. The only building I see in the old and new is the Depot on the far left. Built in about 1880.

Thank you Speckled. I just learned some new techniques to use on Google Earth.

tumblehome: "That’s pretty cool seeing the old and new. The only building I see in the old and new is the Depot on the far left. Built in about 1880."

There's a couple others, but not many.