Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• Replace Interstate 94 between downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul with a boulevard? Chalk that up as another dumb idea ( "New direction for I-94?" April 4). I'm old enough to remember what it was like driving between the two downtowns before there was a freeway. University Avenue was the main route, and it was slow and loaded with traffic lights! And with all the stops and starts involved, it was probably loaded with exhaust pollution. Does anyone really think the amount of traffic we have between the two downtowns would work on a boulevard? Gee, why not toss in some bike lanes on the boulevard while you're at it and make it even worse? Dave Price, Edina ••• A major reason I live in the Midway neighborhood of St. Paul is the convenience of reaching all parts of the metro. The project to convert a portion of I-94 to a boulevard would destroy a significant part of that convenience. If this project gains traction, I will move out of St. Paul. I think the promoters grossly overstate the positives and minimize or dismiss the negatives. It would probably double the transit time between Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns, and double any significant trip within the central cities that currently uses I-94. Mass transit in the corridor would duplicate the Green Line two blocks to the north. Duplication does not improve mass transit in the metro. As a business development area, it would duplicate the business districts on University and Grand avenues. There have been housing developments on University following the light rail, and maybe business expansion will follow the population increase. However, it appears that further housing development has paused if not stopped as a result of the rent-control ordinance. Grand Avenue business is hurting. Short- to medium-term environmental impacts in the immediate corridor would probably improve slightly — fewer car trips in the immediate area, and fewer cars driving through. But I don't see overall trips decreasing in the short term. Longer and intermediate trips will likely go either to Interstate 694 or Interstate 494; shorter trips on city streets will take more time and will be stop-and-go — two things that increase emissions and would make the environmental quality slightly worse overall for the metro. For the most part, metro air quality is shared. It might improve in the long term, but that will require improvements to the transit system as a whole — not just serving the new corridor, but making it easier to get to more places conveniently. And this would also require changes in personal behaviors. Environmental improvement is as likely as not just wishful thinking. Like the Rondo bridge/freeway cover proposal, I think it is highly unlikely taxes generated by this change will come anywhere close to paying back the costs over a 50-year time horizon and probably not over a 100-year time period. The I-94 conversion would dwarf the ReConnect Rondo one. This will be one more pressure (convenience, access and cost) that will push private sector employment out of St. Paul, and getting residents to those moved jobs will be more difficult. Converting the I-94 corridor is not a way to make St. Paul a better place to live. Karl Dewahl, St. Paul ••• We could have a win-win solution to the problem of rebuilding I-94 by returning to the 1947 recommendation of St. Paul city engineer George Harrold that I-94 run along the rail line near Pierce Butler Route. Constructing a new highway there would not disrupt the existing I-94 traffic until the new one is complete, would run through a largely industrial area without disturbing residential neighborhoods, and would allow the state to pay for much of the new highway by filling in the current I-94 trench, turning it into a boulevard, and selling the land that it owns along that route for higher-density, mixed-use development that would also help heal neighborhoods like Rondo and Prospect Park. Thomas Fisher, Minneapolis ••• Regarding "New direction for I-94?″ : I have a two-birds-with-one-stone counterproposal. Let's put Our Streets in charge of legal weed, because clearly they know where to get the good stuff. As someone who has lived through the reimagining of University Avenue, I can attest that the full-color rendering on the front page is pure fantasy. Dan Ratliff, Minneapolis Just read Pat McKinzie Lechault's commentary about the early days of women's
basketball ( "How it came to be that women's basketball is the talk of the town," Opinion Exchange, April 4). My time was even earlier. I was a lady jock with no place to go. I would have loved to play (full court) basketball, soccer and volleyball. Instead I got to be a utility player in band and choir. Born too soon! Judith I. Nelson, Anoka ••• Great article by Pat McKinzie Lechault! Thank you and the
Women before and during your time for promoting women's sports. It is such a spot-on article. I believe the media (social, TV, newspapers, colleges) can do more, though. Look at the women's Gopher hockey, gymnastics, softball,
Tennis — they hardly get press time if they win the championship. Also, the women Gopher basketball team is playing in the WNIT championship. Where is the coverage for them? Oh, a blurb in the "Minnesota Scene" recap. Yet on the front of the sports pages there is article about the men's basketball players returning. Come on, let's all support women's sports — give them their much-deserved media time too! Amy Omodt, Minneapolis Excuse me, but I beg to differ from Dr. Lee Newcomer's advice to the Legislature to stay out of the prior authorization issue ( "The case against legislation on prior authorization," Opinion Exchange, April 4). His longtime work for UnitedHealthcare disqualifies him from giving a balanced opinion. I am sure he worked hard to provide the best care possible for his patients, but I think he fails to recognize the hugely biased standpoint he is coming from. After all it was UnitedHealthcare's work over many years, back in the early days of managed care, that led to the oppressive burden of forever and ever needing to fill out PAs and make the workday of physicians and midlevels and support staff miserable. When has a UnitedHealthcare policy led to improvement in patient care? Its policies lead to large improvements in their corporate profits and more grief for distressed patients and health care workers. Its policies come between patients and doctors. The track record of UnitedHealthcare disqualifies that company from having meaningful influence on our country's difficult health care economics situation. We need to move toward a universal health care program, i.e., Medicare for All. And not Medicare Advantage managed by UnitedHealthcare. This requires government action such as the proposal in our state Legislature. There are very difficult decisions to be made in allocation of resources, compensation and pricing of therapies that would be better handled by our Departments of Health than in corporate boardrooms. The record of what has happened with our health care system under the ever-growing management of UnitedHealthcare disqualifies that megacorporation from bullying us anymore. Ernest Peaslee, Duluth The writer is a retired internal medicine physician.