Rethinking I-94 looks to enhance connectivity and address identified transportation needs. In doing so, Rethinking I-94 works to ensure residents have a meaningful voice in transportation decisions that affect their lives.

The I-94 Corridor

Communities along the Rethinking I-94 corridor play a critical role in the institutional and cultural fabric of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Culturally diverse and vibrant neighborhoods, such as Cedar Riverside in Minneapolis, are home to and supports 35,000 residents, 1,300 businesses, and 24,000 employees where people from dozens of different ethnicities and languages call home, exist along the entirety of the Rethinking I-94 corridor. The University of Minnesota, as well as six other institutions of higher education, many primary and secondary schools, hospitals, entertainment venues, and major stadiums and arenas are all located in or adjacent to the Rethinking I-94 corridor. The I-94 corridor is one of Minnesota’s most frequently traveled corridors and supports a variety of multimodal transportation needs.

• I-94 plays a critical role in the movement of freight and goods for the Twin Cities metropolitan area with 7.5 miles of roading infrastructure and 4,650 – 6,500 heavy commercial trucks per day.
• I-94 supports 130 express bus stops and 38 limited-stop bus per day as well as between 114,000 and 167,000 vehicles per day.
• I-94 is used by many emergency response organizations such as law enforcement agencies, emergency medical response teams, and hospitals to the community which they serve.
• The sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, and roadway along and across I-94 also support multimodal transportation
• While the corridor currently supports multimodal transportation, Rethinking I-94 will be addressing opportunities to make improvements

Phase I (2016-2018)

A two-year technical research study and supporting engagement activities performed to establish the foundation for future planning and project work.

Public engagement toolkit

The Rethinking I-94 public engagement toolkit (PDF) is an adaptable process that guides MnDOT project teams public engagement.

Zone profiles

MnDOT divided the corridor into six zones based on anticipated future design and construction projects. These Zone Profiles feature information about each zone including demographics, survey responses, community organizations and events, local media and elected officials.

• Rethinking I-94 Zone Profiles (PDF)

Community culture and history overviews

These overviews provide historical and cultural background about key groups of stakeholders along the I-94 corridor, as well as information about broader cultural characteristics of the different groups and their history of engagement on transportation and planning issues in the Twin Cities.

• Rethinking I-94 community culture and overviews (PDF)

Rethinking I-94 Phase 1 Report

Rethinking I-94 Phase 1 report details two years of technical research and engagement activity centered on the corridor including a wide range of engagement and technical tasks establishing the foundation for future planning and project work.

• Executive summary (PDF)
• Rethinking I-94 Phase 1 report (PDF)
• Community summary (PDF)

Phase II

The environmental process for Rethinking I-94 Phase 2 has three key steps. There will be opportunities for public feedback and comments during each step. Big picture questions must first be answered before more detailed design can be taken to determine what is possible and to make sure that all issues are addressed.

Step One: Scoping (Rethinking I-94 is currently in this step.)

What alternatives and issues will be studied in the Tier 1 EIS?

This process identifies the basic alternatives that will move forward into the next stage of environmental review. We anticipate being in Scoping for the next year. Little detail on alternatives will be developed at this step. For example, the alternatives will have different roadway types, number and type of lanes, and transit service types, but limited details on potential changes to frontage roads, interchanges, or pedestrian and bicycle crossings. The Scoping Document also proposes evaluation criteria for alternatives in the Tier 1 EIS and outlines the level of detail to which each potential social, economic, and environmental issue will be addressed.

Learn more about the Rethinking I-94 alternatives.

Step Two: Tier 1 EIS

What is the overall vision for I-94 and how will it be accomplished? What individual projects are needed to implement that vision?

This step will choose a preferred alternative and determine the footprint, including roadway type (freeway or non-freeway), the number and type of travel lanes, and type of transit and associated stops. This step will also identify potential improvements to interchanges in the project area and locations for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A corridor visualization will be completed to help identify unique elements of the surrounding communities that could be incorporated into future projects, such as landscaping, bridge designs, transit stop amenities, and more. The Tier 1 EIS follows Scoping and is anticipated to take three to four years to complete.

Step Three: Tier 2 Environmental Documents

What will each potential improvement look like in more detail? What are the potential impacts and how will they be addressed?

The final step in the process is for individual projects that are to be constructed. Greater detail will be provided about interchanges, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit stops, landscaping, lighting, noise walls, parking, and other roadway elements. Each project included in the program of projects will require a deeper level of design and the preparation of an individual environmental document. The Tier 2 environmental documents will focus on addressing specific project impacts at individual project locations within the corridor. At this stage, all design details necessary to prepare the projects for construction will be addressed. As designs become more detailed, potential opportunities for improved streetscaping (trees/vegetation, lighting, etc.), public art, and other uses of right of way will be better understood.

Schedule

The project is in the environmental process phase. The environmental process is an orderly process. We will update the information and materials on this site as we continue through the process.

Click here for larger image

Project documents

The documents below were created to help project staff, partners, and the public learn more about the environmental process.

• Agency roles and responsibilities (PDF)
• Essential Elements of the FHWA NEPA Process (PDF)
• Logical Termini (PDF)
• Project Purpose (PDF)
• Evaluation Criteria - Full DRAFT (PDF)
• Evaluation Criteria Summary (PDF)
• Project Goals (PDF)

Educational videos

I-94 Documentary

A two-part documentary about I-94 aired on a local Twin Cities television station in April.

Part One - Interstate 94: A History and Its Impact

This video focuses on the construction of I-94 in the middle of the 20th Century and the affect it had on the communities it bisected.

Part Two - Interstate 94: Today and Tomorrow

This video focuses on the here and now as it relates to I-94 through the Twin Cities, as well as continuing work to engage with communities along the interstate in an effort to develop a comprehensive, community-based vision for the corridor.

Rethinking I-94 video tour

Gloria Jeff presented a video tour of the project for the AASHTO Peer Exchange on Public Engagement in October 2020.

Livability Framework

Gloria Jeff presents an introduction to the Livability Framework.

A summary of the revised Rethinking I-94 Draft Purpose and Need draft document is available.

• Rethinking I-94 Phase 2 – Draft Purpose and Need Summary10-07-2022 (PDF)

  
  

Background

Rethinking I-94 is guided by the Purpose and Need Statement, Evaluation Criteria, and a Statement of Goals.

The Purpose and Need Statement explains why the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is undertaking a project and its objectives. It provides the basis for developing evaluation criteria, identifying a range of alternatives, and later selecting the preferred alternative.

Evaluation Criteria are used to measure whether an alternative meets the project purpose and need and to measure social, economic, and environmental (SEE) impacts of an alternative.

The Statement of Goals is an avenue for MnDOT to incorporate its Livability Framework in the evaluation of alternatives. The Statement of Goals were created through our engagement with the community and are not mandated by law. Nonetheless, the goals are important factors in developing and screening alternatives.

Identified goals

Beyond addressing identified transportation needs, the improvements will support broader community goals identified in Rethinking I-94 Phase 1, which include:

• Incorporate the Livability Framework through the process to identify opportunities for establishing the following for the communities that live, work, gather, and play around the corridor:
  1. a sense of place,
  2. connectivity,
  3. economic vitality,
  4. equity,
  5. safety/security, and
  6. public health and the environment
• Develop and execute a community-based approach focused on reconnecting neighborhoods, revitalizing communities, and ensuring residents have a meaningful voice in transportation decisions that affect their lives.

The statement of goals serves as a guiding document in developing and evaluating alternatives. They play an important role in helping advance the vision developed by the surrounding communities. They also help identify additional interests beyond transportation that may not be able to be achieved through improvements to the transportation system but can be advanced through collaboration with partner agencies such as the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.

It is anticipated that some transportation improvements will address items within the Livability Framework. Transportation improvements will enhance community connections for all modes, making it easier and safer for people and goods to travel on, along, and across the corridor. Transportation projects may also present opportunities for aesthetics or treatments that enhance sense of place for the area. These activities and refinements will primarily occur later in the process. Currently, MnDOT is developing a high-level corridor vision with very limited design detail. MnDOT will provide more detail once a design is selected.

In addition to leading I-94 transportation improvements, MnDOT will support efforts being led by community and agency partners to fully realize broader livability goals related to Connectivity, Economics/Economic Vitality, Equity, Public Health and the Environment, Safety, Sense of Place, and Trust.

Learn more about the Livability Framework developed in the Rethinking I-94 Phase 1 Report (PDF).

Rethinking I-94 Evaluation Criteria: Scoping Decision Document (SDD) and Tier 1 EIS

Evaluation criteria have been developed for the Scoping Decision Document (SDD) and Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phases of Rethinking I-94. This is the first step of the alternative evaluation process. The criteria used in the SDD and Tier 1 EIS have been developed concurrently for review and general agreement. Following the Scoping phase, the Tier 1 EIS evaluation will be reassessed to refine criteria as needed.

Categories and Subcategories

There are four main categories of criteria with several subcategories under each. The four main categories include: purpose and need; social, economic, and environmental (SEE); Livability framework (goals); and additional considerations. Purpose and need categories have been identified for mainline and access alternatives based on transportation needs in the corridor. SEE impact categories have been identified based on resources in the corridor and criteria that could have a discernable variation at Scoping Decision Document (SDD) and Tier 1 stages of design and could result in findings with major impacts. Livability categories address goals and the Livability framework developed during Rethinking I-94 Phase 1. Additional consideration categories subsume factors concerning cost, maintenance, and consistency with adopted plans.

Measures

For each subcategory, at least one criteria and measure has been identified to evaluate whether the alternative addresses the purpose and need, impacts SEE resources, or is consistent with the Livability framework. Measurements include a mixture of quantitative and qualitative assessments. For measures with minimum standards, minimum performance criteria have been identified based on MnDOT or FHWA standards. Many of the standards and performance criteria have been documented in subject area technical memos.

Purpose and need, SEE impact items, and goals and Livability categories will be evaluated by either comparing the alternative to the No Build or based on the subcategory’s performance measure. For example, Person Throughput will be calculated for each alternative and documented as to whether it is higher, equal to, or lower than the No Build Alternative.

Evaluation Process

Alternatives will first be screened during the SDD Phase to determine whether they have “fatal flaws.” Alternatives with fatal flaws may not be technically or economically feasible, or they may result in SEE impacts that cannot be mitigated. For alternatives that do not have fatal flaws, the evaluation process will be first based upon the ability of an alternative to address the purpose and need criteria. Those that do not pass this screening will be eliminated as they are not “reasonable” alternatives. Alternatives that address the purpose and need will continue forward and will be further evaluated to understand the potential for and magnitude of impacts to SEE resources within the corridor. These impacts will be documented, and alternatives will then be evaluated to determine whether they address the goals and Livability Framework pillars identified in Rethinking I-94 Phase 1 along with several Additional Considerations.

Alternatives in the SDD Phase that best address the purpose and need evaluation criteria, minimize SEE impacts, and perform favorably in terms of goals & Livability and Additional Considerations will move into the Tier 1 EIS. The Tier 1 will use the identified criteria and measures to evaluate the remaining alternatives in greater detail. Because more design information will be available, additional purpose and need, SEE impact, goals/Livability, and Additional Considerations measures will be incorporated to include items that were not expected to have substantial differences between alternatives in the SDD Phase. Evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS will first be based on addressing purpose and need criteria, followed by minimizing SEE impacts, and then meeting project goals and Additional Considerations. At the end of the Tier 1 process, an alternative that establishes the corridor footprint will be selected and a program of projects will be developed.

Tier 2 documents will be required that get into greater detail as individual projects move forward. Additional criteria may be developed during this process.

Step 1: Scoping Decision Document (SDD) Phase

Step 2: Tier 1 EIS Phase

Topics Not Addressed in the Evaluation Criteria

There are several topics important to MnDOT and the public that are not included as part of the evaluation criteria. In some cases, this is because the level of detail in the design at this stage prevents full investigation of the alternative. In other instances, certain interests are addressed by existing MnDOT standard procedures, and will be implemented where feasible regardless of the selected alternative. For example, MnDOT uses various construction techniques to recycle pavement materials and reuse them during construction. In addition, MnDOT includes native plant species in its standard seed mixes and is working to increase the use of native species for roadside vegetation. Light emitting diode (LED) luminaires are the standard light source for the majority of MnDOT’s roadway lighting. Older roadway lighting is being replaced with LEDs and this transition will continue as projects are completed. Good lighting is also important for maintaining personal safety for people crossing the corridor. These detailed aspects of project design are examples of items that will be addressed as part of the implementation of specific projects in the Tier 2 process for Rethinking I-94.

Overview

Rethinking I-94 reached an important milestone in July, alternatives were released to the public. Alternatives at this stage are a combination of highway and transit ideas that reflect the basic design and number of lanes of the roadway, the type of transit service provided, and potential transit stop locations. The alternatives are high-level, meaning that more details will be developed as feedback is received and additional technical information is gathered.

There is not a preferred alternative at this time. The current alternatives are draft and will be refined as the project progresses and we learn more information and receive input and feedback from the community. At this stage, we are attempting to understand what alternatives best serve the transportation needs of the surrounding communities and businesses, as well as others that use I-94 as part of their travel.

While the current graphics give a general idea of what the roadway would be, there will be some variations based on location and space available for construction. For example, today there are frontage roads in some areas next to the freeway and in some locations there are not.

The graphics are intended for conceptual purposes only and are not to be interpreted as showing actual scale or final design for the roadway. The graphics are intended to show the number of travel lanes and transit options. They only represent a small section of the corridor. Changes to overpasses, intersections/interchanges, ramps, frontage roads, and parking have not been determined and no landscaping or corridor enhancements have been identified. Details on these improvements will be identified later in the process.

Public engagement

From June to November of 2023, MnDOT hosted in-person and virtual public meetings, conducted an online survey, met with partners, community-based organizations and other key stakeholders, and attended multiple community events to collect public feedback on the alternatives. Feedback received during this time period will be used to refine and further develop alternatives. You can review a summary of the public engagement efforts that took place following the release of the alternatives. A formal public comment period is expected to be announced later in 2024. You can still review the alternatives and share your thoughts by reaching out directly to us at rethinkingI94project.dot@state.mn.us.  

General Maintenance, Maintenance – A, and Maintenance – B

• General Maintenance, Maintenance – A, and Maintenance – B Information Sheet (PDF)

General Maintenance (No Build): I-94 would remain as is. Existing transit service would continue.

Maintenance A: Maintain the existing infrastructure. Existing transit service would continue.

Maintenance B: Replace the existing infrastructure to current standards with consistent shoulders. This would allow transit to run on bus shoulders between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul.

General Maintenance, Maintenance - A, and Maintenance - B

Roadway type: Keeps a freeway with the same number of travel lanes.

Number of travel lanes: No changes from existing. Varies between three and four lanes in both directions.

Transit: No change from current service (Route 94 express bus). Maintenance B would extend bus shoulders to match conditions prior to I-35W bridge collapse.

Access changes: No changes from existing.

Pedestrian and bicycle: No major changes from existing. All crossings of I-94 would be a bridge – either pedestrian/bicycle-only or a roadway with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes). With Maintenance B, some new/improved facilities could be provided if bridges are replaced.

General Maintenance, Maintenance A

• The freeway would not be reconstructed. Maintenance A would allow for more in-depth maintenance activities.
• The overall number of lanes would not change. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Existing express bus transit service (Metro Transit Route 94) would continue.
• No changes to pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
• No changes to interchanges or ramps along the freeway.

Maintenance B

• The freeway would be reconstructed with the same number of lanes.
• Existing express bus transit service (Metro Transit Route 94) would continue. Current bus shoulders would be extended to connect downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul.
• Some new/improved pedestrian or bicycle facilities could be provided if bridges are replaced.
• No changes to interchanges or ramps along the freeway.

At-Grade – A

• At-Grade – A Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept involves the removal of the existing freeway, filling in the corridor, and constructing a new at-grade roadway. It also features dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes in the center with three stops.

Roadway type: Removes the freeway (and Interstate designation within project area). Constructs at-grade roadway in same location.

Number of travel lanes: 2 lanes in each direction for all vehicles and 1 dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) lane in each direction in the center of the roadway.

Transit: BRT in dedicated lanes in the center of the roadway with 3 stops (Locations to be determined).

Access changes: Current interchanges, on/off ramp locations, and other bridges and underpasses would be converted to intersections with the new roadway (intersection designs to be determined). Some bridges for cross traffic may remain due to the elevations of existing roadways. Frontage roads/side streets may be modified or removed.

Pedestrian and bicycle: Most crossings would be “at-grade” (people would use crosswalks to get across the lanes of traffic) because current bridges and underpasses would be converted to intersections. Pedestrian/bicycle bridges over the road may be possible in some areas. Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes) along the north and/or south sides of the new roadway. Specific changes are to be determined.

At-Grade - A

• The freeway would be removed and replaced with a road that would have 2 lanes for all vehicles and 1 dedicated transit lane (for buses only) in both directions.
• The overall number of lanes is reduced in some areas of the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in the dedicated lanes in the center of the roadway.
• There would likely be a mix of at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings (people would use crosswalks to get across the lanes of traffic) and pedestrian/bicycle bridges depending on the location.
• New pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities are possible.
• Current interchanges and most crossing locations would be converted to intersections.
• In some locations a bridge for railroad crossings, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or local roadways may remain due to the terrain.
• Current frontage roads/side streets may be removed or incorporated into the at-grade design.

At-Grade – B

• At-Grade – B Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept involves the removal of the existing freeway, filling in the corridor, and constructing a new at-grade roadway. It also features dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes on the outside of the roadway with three stops.

Roadway type: Removes the freeway (and Interstate designation within project area). Constructs at-grade roadway in same location.

Number of travel lanes: 2 lanes in each direction for all vehicles and 1 dedicated bus rapid transit (BRT) lane in each direction on the outside of the roadway.

Transit: BRT in dedicated lanes on the outside of the roadway with 3 stops (Locations to be determined).

Access changes: Current interchanges, on/off ramp locations, and other bridges and underpasses would be converted to intersections with the new roadway (intersection designs to be determined). Some bridges for cross traffic may remain due to the elevations of existing roadways. Frontage roads/side streets may be modified or removed.

Pedestrian and bicycle: Most crossings would be “at-grade” (people would use crosswalks to get across the lanes of traffic) because current bridges and underpasses would be converted to intersections. Pedestrian/bicycle bridges over the road may be possible in some areas. Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes) along the north and/or south sides of the new roadway. Specific changes are to be determined.

At-Grade - B

• The freeway would be removed and replaced with a road that would have 2 lanes for all vehicles and 1 dedicated transit lane (for buses only) in both directions.
• The overall number of lanes is reduced in some areas of the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in the dedicated lanes on the outside of the roadway.
• There would likely be a mix of at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings (people would use crosswalks to get across the lanes of traffic) and pedestrian/bicycle bridges depending on the location.
• New pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities are possible.
• Current interchanges and most crossing locations would be converted to intersections.
• In some locations a bridge for railroad crossings, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or local roadways may remain due to the terrain.
• Current frontage roads/side streets may be removed or incorporated into the at-grade design.

Local/Regional Roadways – A

• Local/Regional Roadways – A Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept features a separation into two roadway systems, providing a separate local traffic roadway and freeway space for through trips. The local system provides transportation options for local traffic, while the regional system offers limited access for regional traffic and includes transit on the shoulder.

Roadway type: Keeps a reduced size freeway. Constructs local roadways on both sides.

Number of travel lanes: Freeway: 2 lanes in each direction for all vehicles and 1 bus shoulder with BRT in each direction. Local Roadways: 1 lane in each direction for all vehicles (on both sides of freeway).

Transit: Transit in bus shoulders on the freeway (Stop locations to be determined). Local bus route changes to be determined.

Access changes: Access changes to be determined. Interchanges will be limited and some will be removed. Potential to modify interchanges in some locations including on/off ramp changes or removal. Potential changes to frontage roads/side streets may occur in some locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle: To be determined. All crossings of I-94 would be a bridge – either pedestrian/bicycle-only or a roadway with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes). Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities on roads that go east-west (like I-94) to the north or south of I-94 since bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on Interstate routes.

Local/Regional Roadways - A

• The freeway would be reconstructed and narrowed to have 2 general purpose lanes (all vehicles can use) and a bus shoulder in both directions.
• Two-way local streets will be constructed on each side of the freeway, with speed limits expected to be lower than the freeway.
• Current frontage roads/side streets may be removed or incorporated into the local roadway design.
• The overall number of freeway lanes is reduced throughout the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in the bus shoulders on the regional system. Local bus route changes to be determined.
• Current pedestrian facilities would be improved, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings will be considered.
• New pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities along the new local roadways are possible.
• Current interchanges along the freeway would be modified or removed to improve mobility and safety. Most existing on/off ramps along the freeway would be removed.

Reduced Freeway – A

• Reduced Freeway – A Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept involves rebuilding the existing freeway to include 2 general purpose lanes and 1 managed lane with bus rapid transit (BRT) in each direction. The BRT system could include up to three stops along the managed lane.

Roadway type: Keeps a freeway. Reduces the number of travel lanes.

Number of travel lanes: 2 lanes in each direction for all vehicles and 1 managed lane in each direction (for buses, people that carpool, and those willing to pay).

Transit: Bus rapid transit (BRT) in managed lanes with no stops; 1 stop at Snelling Ave; or 3 stops at 25th/27th Ave, Snelling Ave, and Dale St (Final locations to be determined).

Access changes: Access changes to be determined. Potential to modify interchanges in some locations including on/off ramp changes or removal. Potential changes to frontage roads/side streets may occur in some locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle: To be determined. All crossings of I-94 would be a bridge – either pedestrian/bicycle-only or a roadway with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes). Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities on roads that go east-west (like I-94) to the north or south of I-94 (frontage roads) since bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on Interstate routes.

Reduced Freeway - A

• The freeway would be reconstructed to have 2 general purpose lanes (all vehicles can use) and 1 managed lane (for buses, those that carpool, and those willing to pay) in both directions. Outside of peak hours, managed lanes operate as general purpose lanes.
• The overall number of lanes is reduced throughout the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in the managed lanes.
• Current pedestrian facilities would be improved, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings will be considered.
• Interchanges and ramps along the freeway would be studied to improve mobility and safety.

Reconfigure Freeway – A

• Reconfigure Freeway – A Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept involves rebuilding the existing freeway to include 3 general purpose lanes and 1 managed lane with bus rapid transit (BRT) in each direction. The BRT system could include up to three stops along the managed lane.

Roadway type: Keeps a freeway. Changes the type of travel lanes available.

Number of travel lanes: 3 lanes in each direction for all vehicles and 1 managed lane in each direction (for buses, people that carpool, and those willing to pay).

Transit: Bus rapid transit (BRT) in managed lanes with no stops; 1 stop at Snelling Ave; or 3 stops at 25th/27th Ave, Snelling Ave, and Dale St (Final locations to be determined).

Access changes: Access changes to be determined. Potential to modify interchanges in some locations including on/off ramp changes or removal. Potential changes to frontage roads/side streets may occur in some locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle: To be determined. All crossings of I-94 would be a bridge – either pedestrian/bicycle-only or a roadway with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes). Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities on roads that go east-west (like I-94) to the north or south of I-94 (frontage roads) since bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on Interstate routes.

Reconfigure Freeway - A

• The freeway would be reconstructed to have 3 general purpose lanes (all vehicles can use) and 1 managed lane (for buses, those that carpool, and those willing to pay) in both directions. Outside of peak hours, managed lanes operate as general purpose lanes.
• The overall number of lanes stays the same throughout the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in the managed lanes.
• Current pedestrian facilities would be improved, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings will be considered.
• Interchanges and ramps along the freeway would be studied to improve mobility and safety.

Expanded Freeway – A

• Expanded Freeway – A Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept involves rebuilding the existing freeway and adding 1 managed lane with bus rapid transit (BRT) in each direction. The BRT system could include up to three stops along the managed lane. The total number of lanes will vary because the current number of lanes also varies.

Roadway type: Keeps a freeway. Adds a new managed lane.

Number of travel lanes: 3-4 lanes in each direction for all vehicles and 1 managed lane in each direction (for buses, people that carpool, and those willing to pay).

Transit: Bus rapid transit (BRT) in managed lanes with no stops; 1 stop at Snelling Ave; or 3 stops at 25th/27th Ave, Snelling Ave, and Dale St (Final locations to be determined).

Access changes: Access changes to be determined. Potential to modify interchanges in some locations including on/off ramp changes or removal. Potential changes to frontage roads/side streets may occur in some locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle: To be determined. All crossings of I-94 would be a bridge – either pedestrian/bicycle-only or a roadway with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes). Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities on roads that go east-west (like I-94) to the north or south of I-94 (frontage roads) since bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on Interstate routes.

Expanded Freeway - A

• The freeway would be reconstructed to have 3-4 general purpose lanes (all vehicles can use) and 1 managed lane (for buses, those that carpool, and those willing to pay) in both directions. The managed lane would be an addition to the current number of lanes. Outside of peak hours, managed lanes operate as general purpose lanes.
• The overall number of lanes will increase by 1 throughout the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in the managed lanes.
• Current pedestrian facilities would be improved, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings will be considered.
• Interchanges and ramps along the freeway would be studied to improve mobility and safety.

Expanded Freeway – B

• Expanded Freeway – B Information Sheet (PDF)

This concept involves rebuilding the existing freeway and adding 1 new lane (for all vehicles) and extending the bus shoulder along the entire corridor in each direction. The total number of lanes will increase.

Roadway type: Keeps a freeway. Adds a new lane for all vehicles and extends bus shoulders.

Number of travel lanes: 4-5 lanes in each direction for all vehicles.

Transit: Bus shoulders between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul with 1 stop at Snelling Ave.

Access changes: Access changes to be determined. Potential to modify interchanges in some locations including on/off ramp changes or removal. Potential changes to frontage roads/side streets may occur in some locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle: To be determined. All crossings of I-94 would be a bridge – either pedestrian/bicycle-only or a roadway with pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities (such as a trail, sidewalk, or bike lanes). Potential to include pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities on roads that go east-west (like I-94) to the north or south of I-94 (frontage roads) since bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on Interstate routes.

Expanded Freeway - B

• The freeway would be reconstructed to have 4-5 general purpose lanes (all vehicles can use) and a consistent shoulder in both directions..
• The overall number of lanes will increase by 1 throughout the project corridor. Currently the number of general purpose lanes varies between 3 and 4 in both directions.
• Transit will operate in bus shoulders. Current bus shoulders would be extended to connect downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul.
• Current pedestrian facilities would be improved, and additional pedestrian and bicycle crossings will be considered.
• Interchanges and ramps along the freeway would be studied to improve mobility and safety.

Historic Review Process

A part of Rethinking I-94’s environmental review process is to evaluate the effects to historic properties. This evaluation is required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. One of the first steps in the Section 106 process is to develop historic contexts for areas impacted by a project. More information on this process is available on our Cultural Resources Unit website.

Previously, most studies left gaps in the history of neighborhoods, trends, and groups in the area. Most existing historic contexts stop shortly after World War II and do not address the resource types and architectural styles developed from the post-war period to the present. Existing studies also focus primarily on white, Euro-American history with little to no mention of other racial, ethnic, and social communities. A priority of the Rethinking I-94 historic contexts is to address those gaps, creating a more inclusive understanding of the area’s history and what resources may be eligible for the National Register. The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources.

Report and Summaries

We have written community histories that are more inclusive than past documentation. The community histories report is available for reading in individual chapters or short summaries. The contexts are separated into individual sections. Some are geographically based and discuss the historic development of specific neighborhoods. Others are thematic and cover a resource type or community history across the area.

MnDOT’s Cultural Resources Unit will be using the histories in future project review steps. We hope the community histories are also useful for the public, cities, counties, and others interested in better understanding the histories of the communities near I-94.

Some facts from the histories

The following items are just a few highlighted facts.

University Avenue at Vandalia Avenue in 1953, with four travel lanes and paired streetcar tracks set in cobblestone ("University Avenue at Vandalia Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota," 1953. Collection of the Minnesota Streetcar Museum

• At the dawn of the automobile era, a heavily used street in Minneapolis and Saint Paul might be surfaced with brick, concrete, asphalt, or cobblestone, but side streets might not be paved. The rapid rise of the automobile – from approximately 55,000 nationwide in 1904 to one-half million in 1910—helped to catalyze county, state, and eventually federal efforts to create better roads. Read more in the Transportation chapter.

• The Cedar Riverside neighborhood is historically one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the Twin Cities. Originally the port of entry for an influx of Scandinavian immigrants, the neighborhood has maintained its status as an immigrant hub since the late nineteenth century. Today is home to a sizeable Somali population. Read more in the Cedar Riverside chapter.
• Union Park began not as a residential neighborhood but as an amusement park. In the early 1880s, businessmen Herman Grote and John O. Hinkel saw an opportunity to create a picturesque “pleasure resort” that “could be reached at any and all hours of the day, and which combined natural beauty and attractions with the conveniences of the city. The development had a 33-acre park with a dance pavilion, bandstand, and many attractions and events. At the height of its popularity, it boasted a one-day attendance of 10,000 visitors. Read more in the Union Park District chapter.
• The American Indian Movement—a nationwide civil rights movement was founded in 1968 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Read more in the American Indians in the Twin Cities chapter.
• Approximately 433 houses were demolished and 300 businesses were closed or torn down in the Rondo neighborhood for the construction of I-94, and 72 percent of those were owned or occupied by Black people. Read more in the Rondo chapter.

Rondo Commemorative Plaza (4RM+ULA)

• The Minnesota Historical Society nominated Milwaukee Avenue to be included on the National Register of Historic Places for significance related to architecture and social history. On May 2, 1974, the street was officially designated as a place of national significance as the Milwaukee Avenue Historic District. Read more in the Seward chapter.

House at 2125 Milwaukee Avenue in the Milwaukee Avenue Historic District, looking southeast, 2015. On the lefthand side of the image, two pedestrian walkways flank either side of what used to be East Twenty-second Street bisecting the district.

• By 1882, Westminster Presbyterian Church in downtown Minneapolis was one of the largest Presbyterian churches in the United States at nearly two thousand members. Read more in the Places of Worship chapter.
• During World War II, the Saint Anthony Park area was vital in manufacturing and shipping wartime products. As the war ended, construction boomed once more. Glendenning Motorways opened a new truck terminal at Pelham and Wabash Avenues. By 1951, the Midway Club estimated that more than fifty motor freight companies were in the district, as well as garages and service facilities to maintain the truck fleets. Read more in the St. Anthony Park chapter.
• Most nineteenth-century development in the western part of the Study Area was single-family houses and or duplexes. Duplexes are widespread on the 1912 Sanborn maps. As the population of Minneapolis increased rapidly from the late nineteenth century onward, new higher-density apartment buildings helped meet demand. The apartment construction boom began around the turn of the century and continued until the start of the Great Depression. Prior to 1890, nearly 90 percent of Minneapolitans lived in single-family homes or duplexes; by 1930, the number of multi-family units had increased sevenfold, and more than 18 percent of the city’s residents lived in apartments. Read more in the Minneapolis Neighborhoods before the Interstate chapter.
• The funeral industry was a path for Black entrepreneurs to own their own businesses and become community leaders during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Multiple Black-owned funeral homes in Minneapolis and Saint Paul were operated by married couples, making this field one of the few avenues for Black women to lead businesses. Read more in the Black History in the I-94 Corridor chapter.

Bird’s eye view of South Minneapolis in 1879, looking southwest from a point above the University of Minnesota’s East Bank Campus across the Mississippi River toward the intersection of Franklin Avenue (green) and Cedar Avenue (purple), with Riverside Avenue (red) in the foreground; the approximate Study Area is shaded in yellow (J.J. Stoner, “View of South Minneapolis, 1879,” [Madison, Wis: Beck and Pauli, 1879].

From mid-March to early April, people in safety vests marked with Hess Roise will be walking around the Rondo neighborhood and surrounding area taking notes and photos for a historic field survey. These people are architectural historians hired by MnDOT to document architectural details on buildings in and around the Rondo neighborhood. They will do their work from the sidewalks and streets. They will not enter any homes or other properties.

MnDOT’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) is leading this historic field survey. CRU is a unit from the Office of Environmental Stewardship. The unit has professional historians and archaeologists that review Federal Highway Administration funded projects throughout Minnesota, like Rethinking I-94. CRU staff identify historic places and work with the project team to avoid or minimize any harm to historic properties. CRU has contracted with Hess, Roise and Company to help with this historic field survey.

Purpose of historic field surveys

Federal laws require agencies to consider historic properties for any project using federal funds. You can learn more about this regulation by reviewing A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review. For Rethinking I-94, MnDOT needs to know where the historic properties are along I-94 before working to avoid impacts. Historians identified the Rondo neighborhood as an area that needs more study due to its unique history and the major impacts the construction of I-94 had on the community in the 1960s. The information collected during the historic field survey will help guide the development of alternatives for I-94.

What to expect

A historic field survey includes research and fieldwork to identify a community’s historic resources. For the past couple of years, CRU has researched neighborhoods and themes found along the I-94 corridor. Through this research, CRU developed the Rethinking I-94 Community Histories. Fieldwork is the next step in the process.

Architectural historians will walk the Rondo neighborhood and surrounding area and take notes and pictures of architectural details of the buildings. They will be wearing safety vests marked with Hess Roise and will be carrying tablets to take notes and cameras to take pictures of historic details on houses and buildings. They will do this work from sidewalks and streets. They will not enter homes or other properties.

The survey is expected to take several weeks from mid-March to early April to complete.

Information for community partners and residents

Reconnect Rondo, the Rondo Roundtable, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, the State Historic Preservation Office, and Saint Paul public services have all been informed of the historic field survey. MnDOT staff are mailing postcards to residents in the Rondo neighborhood and are hanging posters at community locations to raise awareness of the field survey.

Next steps

Architectural historians will use the information they gather during this historic field survey to further develop a historic context, or a history of the neighborhood, for the area. The historic context will help us determine if the neighborhood is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Understanding the neighborhood better will also help CRU staff inform the Rethinking I-94 process as alternatives are being evaluated.

MnDOT will not list properties on the National Register during this process. If you are interested in listing your own house or building, contact the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. For local designation information, contact the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission.

Contacts

For more information, contact Katie Haun Schuring with MnDOT's Cultural Resources Unit at katherine.haun-schuring@state.mn.us or 612-834-1195.

Rethinking I-94 Community Voices provides community members the opportunity to share their stories and connections to the I-94 corridor. By sharing your unique perspective and experiences, you can have an impact on the future of I-94.

How do you live, work, play or commute on or around the I-94 corridor between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul? Join us in Rethinking I-94 Community Voices and share your story.

Your Story Matters

Rethinking I-94 Community Voices recognizes that those most affected by I-94, and any future changes to I-94, should have a say in shaping its future.

The seven and half mile segment of I-94 between downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis is home to one of the most diverse communities in the state. The corridor is also home to universities and institutions of higher education, schools, hospitals, small businesses, and entertainment venues - including major stadiums and arenas. The corridor is used by walkers, bikers, drivers, buses, and commercial freight haulers – just to name a few.

No matter what your experience with or your connection to I-94 might be, your experience matters to us.

Rethinking I-94 – Building the Future with Community Input

Projects within the Rethinking I-94 program will accomplish the following:

• Improve mobility for people and goods on, along, and across the corridor in a way that facilitates community connections for all modes
• Enhance safety for people and goods on, along, and across the I-94 corridor for all modes
• Address aging infrastructure condition within the I-94 corridor
• Support transportation objectives consistent with adopted state and regional (Met Council) plans

Learn more about the project’s goals and purpose and need here.

Your stories help MnDOT better understand how the community uses the I-94 corridor and the transportation network. Share your story by submitting the Community Voices Form.

Past meetings

Alternatives Public Meetings

Aug. 23, 2023: Virtual Public Meetings

• Alternatives Public Meeting Recording Hmong Translation
• Alternatives Public Meeting Recording Karen Translation
• Alternatives Public Meeting Recording Oromo Translation
• Alternatives Public Meeting Recording Somali Translation
• Alternatives Public Meeting Recording Spanish Translation

Aug. 24, 2023: In-Person Meetings, Elliot Park Recreation Center, Minneapolis

Sept. 14, 2023: In-Person Meetings, Rondo Community Library, St. Paul

Transit Study Public Meetings

Oct. 12, 2022: Rethinking I-94 Transit Study In-Person Public Meeting

Oct. 11, 2022: Rethinking I-94 Transit Study Virtual Public Meeting

• Virtual and In-Person Meeting Summary

Public Information Meetings and Community Conversations

Nov. 17, 2021: Rethinking I-94 Community Conversations - This presentation was given in English with live Karen translation.

• The webinar included a 15-minute informational presentation followed by a 45-minute question, answer, and community feedback session.
• Presentation and conversation summary (PDF)

Nov. 17, 2021: Rethinking I-94 Community Conversations - This presentation was given in English with live Hmong translation.

• The webinar included a 15-minute informational presentation followed by a 45-minute question, answer, and community feedback session.
• Presentation and conversation summary (PDF)

Nov. 16, 2021: Rethinking I-94 Community Conversations - This presentation was given in English with live English with Somali translation.

• The webinar included a 15-minute informational presentation followed by a 45-minute question, answer, and community feedback session.
• Presentation and conversation summary (PDF)

Nov. 16, 2021: Rethinking I-94 Community Conversations - This presentation was given in English with live English with Spanish translation.

• The webinar included a 15-minute informational presentation followed by a 45-minute question, answer, and community feedback session.
• Presentation and conversation summary (PDF)

Committee Process

1. Share existing, background and reference information: MnDOT staff and consultant project team members review background and reference information collected during Phase 1 or provided by city and county project partners.
2. Data collection and analysis:
   Project team members identify what new data is needed. For example, new traffic data can be collected on the interstate, entrance or exits ramps, or adjacent street network. The team collects and analyzes the data.
3. Discuss assumptions and rough framework: The project team discusses any assumptions made in the analysis and starts to develop a rough framework of the technical document.
4. Draft for Technical Advisory Committee: A draft is shared with the Technical Advisory Committee for review and comment. Engineering and planning staff from MnDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Ramsey County, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, and other government entities serve on the Technical Advisory Committee. The committee provides technical advice to the project team.
5. Coordination with Policy and Planning Committee Working Group: Coordination of technical information with the Livability Framework occurs at the Policy and Planning Committee (PPC). The PPC focuses on potential strategies for implementing the Livability Framework developed during Phase 1 (sense of place, community connections, economic opportunities, equity, safety, and a healthy environment for the communities that live, work, and play there). Professional planning staff from MnDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Ramsey County, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, and other government entities serve on the PPC.
6. Revisions: At each step in the process the project team is taking in feedback and revising the draft.
7. Engagement with Cooperating and Participating Agencies: The draft is shared with the Cooperating and Participating Agencies. This is a process requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act. Cooperating agencies are Federal agencies, other than the lead agency, with jurisdiction. Participating agencies are those with an interest in the project. There roles are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality which oversees the NEPA implementation.
8. Revisions: The project team presents information, receives feedback, and revises the draft.
9. Engagement with Community Leaders: The draft and/or staff developed education materials and questions are shared with community leaders to gather initial feedback on the information, the presentation of the information, and the plan for gathering broader public feedback. The Community Leaders, formerly Community Advisors, includes leaders from community organizations representing neighborhoods, business interests, and cultural associations.
10. Revisions: The project team presents information, receives feedback, and revises the draft.
11. Recommendations to Policy Advisory Committee: The project team presents the draft to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC consists of elected and appointed officials who provide decision direction. Current PAC members include; MnDOT Commissioner, Federal Highway Administration Minnesota Division, Metropolitan Council (Committee Co-Chair), County Commissioners, Mayor and City Council Members, and State Senators and Representatives.
12. Revisions: The project team presents information, receives feedback, and revises the draft.
13. Engagement with Broader Public: The project team presents the technical information to the public in both it’s technical document form and in plain language format. Technical information and format is available on request. Engagement opportunities will be online and in-person using various tools. These will be opportunities for the project team to learn from the community’s lived experiences.
14. Revisions: The project team presents information, receives feedback, and revises the draft.
15. Report back to PAC; Continuing analysis and engagement as needed: The project team reports back to the PAC following the broader public engagement. Analysis, revision, and further engagement continue. The technical information becomes a base for the Scoping Decision Document that also flows through the committee and public review cycles.

Community Leaders

About

Community Leaders help to identify opportunities for information sharing and two-way communication related to the Rethinking I-94 project. As a liaison to the community on behalf of the project, Community Leaders serve as an information resource and connection point between lead agencies and the community-at-large. As such, Community Leaders also serve the project as a resource in sharing their community insights and experiences as it relates to I-94.

In addition, Community Leaders assist with the following activities:

• Provide community insight on communications and engagement strategies related to the project
• Engage community members and stakeholders that are not currently engaged, but should be
• Report what is being said on the ground and share community concerns with MnDOT
• Provide factual and current project information to community members
• Help identify potential issues and strategies to mitigate the impact of Rethinking I-94 on residents and businesses
• Contribute to establishing a shared vision for the corridor and to the implementation of the vision

Membership of the Community Leaders group requires that an individual from the community or a group of individuals from an organization (limit two):

• Provide information back to MnDOT regarding the community members in which you have engaged, and the issues discussed on a regular basis
• Attend quarterly Community Leader meetings hosted by MnDOT
• Engage and participate in other project-related meetings and updates
• Help with sharing accurate information regarding the project

Members of the Community Leaders group are not responsible for:

• Serving as an official decision-maker regarding the project
• Acting as the primary contact for project outreach or presentations
• Serving as a spokesperson or media contact

Community Leaders must be affiliated with a community organization or business that interfaces with community members or serves community needs. There is a limit of two individuals from the same community organization or business. The insight Community Leaders provide is invaluable to the Rethinking I-94 project, but no Community Leader is expected to serve as a sole voice on behalf of any one community. MnDOT recognizes that within any one community or organization, members share different perspectives. To ensure a diverse set of community voices, interests, and stakeholders are represented, membership to the Community Leaders group is subject to review and approval by MnDOT. Completion and maintenance of a Membership Profile Form is required.

Membership

If you or a member of your organization meet the criteria above and wish to participate in the Community Leaders program, please complete the membership profile form and a representative of MnDOT will follow up with you.

Past Meeting Summaries

February 15, 2024

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

July 18, 2023

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

April 21, 2023

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

October 25, 2022

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

February 22, 2022

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

December 28, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

October 26, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

September 28, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)(External link)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)(External link)

August 24, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

July 27, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

June 22, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

April 27, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

March 23, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

February 23, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

August 25, 2020

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

July 28, 2020

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

June 25, 2020

• Agenda (PDF)
• Handouts (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

Past Meeting Summaries

February 14, 2024

• Presentation and Agenda (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

July 17, 2023

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

Sep. 26, 2022

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

Feb. 9, 2022

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

Dec. 10, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting summary (PDF)

Oct. 6, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Meeting Summary (PDF)

July 30, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Notes (PDF)

May 7, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Notes (PDF)

April 9, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Notes (PDF)

February 5, 2021

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Notes (PDF)

December 13, 2019

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Notes (PDF)

September 16, 2019

• Agenda (PDF)
• Presentation (PDF)
• Notes (PDF)

Working Groups

Phase 2 monthly meetings recap

• Transit Working Group (PDF)
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Working Group (PDF)
• Traffic Working Group (PDF)
• Environmental Working Group (PDF)
• Policy and Planning Advisory Committee (PDF)
• Technical Advisory Committee (PDF)
• Joint Technical Advisory Committee and Policy and Planning Advisory Committee (PDF)
• Cooperating and Participating Agencies (PDF)
• Bridge Working Group (PDF)