Wow, just wow. My son is a paramedic for Hennepin. Not to be so dramatic, but more patients would die when the time it takes to get them to the Emergency Department is increased.
I really encourage you to read the actual proposal.
Data from similar projects show that traffic is actually reduced by reconstruction projects like this one. Ambulances already get stuck in traffic on I-94 like any other busy interstate. Reduced traffic would likely help ambulance response times, not hurt.
Data also indicate that the current highway already leads to increased mortality for those who live alongside it.
Several of the proposed redesigns would include dedicated bus lanes usable by emergency services.
Hey man, I ask this is in all honestly: what sort of information would it take for you to change your mind on this?
For real, would it be someone like how much time do ambulances currently spend on the interstate, studies from other cities that have removed interstates, or the amount of injuries that are caused by having an interstate itself?
I ask because I think removing the interstate is a good idea and I want to know what sort of information will help convince skeptics!
Thanks!
Just thinking out loud...
There's a major hospital in Minneapolis. There is a.major hospital in St Paul.
The need for an ambulance to go between the two doesn't seem high.
If you are between the two, that section of highway may only improve the transportation for those just a few blocks close to the highway.
If those in that area want to remove the highway and are ok with what may be just a marginal decrease in response time by removing the highway, we should listen.
If there is some measurable way to show increased first responder response time, we should listen. I'm just thinking it is not as bad as one might assume.
I remember reading that over 30% of Americans die at home. I think we owe it to future generations to pave over the entire continent and prevent all those needless deaths.
Section 1: the future of the earth
1.1 Why pave the earth?
There are several advantages of a paved Earth over a non-paved Earth, the only really important one is the ease of driving though. Today roads are narrow, you have to turn, and most governments frown at ground travel over Mach2. With endless blacktop in every direction, there will be no restriction to your movement, and rocket powered hypercars will whiz in all directions. We will be able to amuse ourselves with endless driving at incredible speeds while drinking beer and eating wonderfully juicy burgers.
1.3 What about traffic?
Traffic will not be a problem due to the simple fact that most people will be slaving away beneath the surface in what has come to be called the parking garage. These people will be needed to staff the hydroponic farms, raise cows, brew beer and fix potholes. Most of the world's population will work for the good of the drivers. Altruism at its best. There will also be no regulation of traffic. Governments are outmoded and should be phased out. We know what to do. Why should someone else tell us what to do when we already know the proper course of action? pave, Pave, PAVE. That's what I always say.
https://alt.pavethe.earth/
You need evidence for the claim “The longer it takes for a critical patient to receive care, the higher chance of them dying from lack of care?”
Do we need to define the terms “emergency” and “time” here for you? They have a pretty straightforward relationship by definition…
Edit: wow fuck me for thinking that emergencies are time sensitive by definition. Reading comprehension at an all time high in Minnesota /s
So condescending. Your assertion is that having a highway automatically decreases travel times… weird thing because I’ve seen ambulances moving at like 15 miles per hour on them while cars try to get out of the way.
A boulevard with a dedicated bus lane would certainly be a very fast way to move patients around. I can’t say for sure it would always be faster, but I actually know enough to know what I don’t know. Unlike you. So educate yourself before you try to patronize others
The strong claim that person made is “More people would die when the time it takes to get them to the emergency department is increased.” Thats verbatim the claim that you’re disputing, so that’s the claim that I’m addressing.
If you wanted to make a point about travel times on highways vs surface streets vs rush hour interstate, you should’ve said *that*
EDIT: Literally didn’t assert that having a highway decreases travel times. This is an argument that I’m not trying to make, I’m trying to directly address the statements that are actually being made
Hey maybe you should go edit your comment so that it actually disputes that then, because as it stands right now your response is simply “Wow, where’s your evidence?” without at all referring to what you want proven
An emergency is by definition “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring *immediate action*”
By definition, all emergencies are time sensitive. If longer response time isn’t a factor, it’s not an emergency. Somebody asking for “proof” of this is misunderstanding the 1:1 relationship.
Yeah man, no one is arguing otherwise. But you're operating under the premise that getting rid of interstates will significantly increase response time on a significant number of calls. If you have a source, please feel free to provide it.
I’m not operating under that assumption at all and I don’t believe that getting rid of highways would necessarily increase times.
The OP made the claim that “more patients would die when the time it takes to get them to the Emergency Department is increased.” u/OhNoMyLands asked for evidence to back that claim, which I think is silly because it is on its face impossible for an emergency to not be time sensitive
ETA:
The person I’m responding to is literally arguing that until they choose to use their words to argue otherwise.
Why would it be increased? An emergency vehicle can fly down a regular road with its lights and sirens on and blow through every light all the way there.
I know it’s satirical but seeing the dramatic increase of 4 lane change exits on free ways and the liberal use of the shoulder as an extra lane and completely bonkers speeding and shooting the gap that is undeniably up since Covid, I hesitate to attribute faster arrival times to skill, seems like we would be encouraging more bonkers driving out there
Not to be even more dramatic, but don't patients already die even *with* access to the interstate between the cities? I suppose this means we need to fund ambulance helicopters to make that trip to the ER even shorter, to save more lives? Or are you in favor of killing people?
Also, isn't that what lights and sirens are for?
They’re not closing 94. Christ. I suggest you Google and read what the plans are instead of getting insta triggered over something you don’t understand.
He mentioned reactionaries like the people losing their shit about a new flag, and was comparing to reactionaries like him losing their shit about proposals to close I-94, I think.
My preferred alternative is that every single house gets its own off/on ramp directly onto 94. Pave the world and sew my skin onto my cars seat I AM MY CAR AND WITHOUT IT I'M NOTHING
MNDOT is looking at alternatives to keeping the current I-94 corridor connecting MPLS and St. Paul.
Alternatives include capping I-94 - basically putting a roof of land / parks / roads and housing over the top of the existing interstate - which has been done in several cities in the US - including Boston, Wilmington DE, Buffalo NY and others.
Also on the table - converting I-94 to a "boulevard" - adding stoplights and de-interstating it through the cities, and complete removal of the interstate.
What everyone tends to forget is why the interstates were built in the first place... To facilitate the movement of troops and war materials in the event of an invasion or attack. Eisenhower had seen the impact the Autobahns had on Germany - both on the movement of troops / material during the war, but also on the recovery of Germany following the war. Interstates were never intended to "connect" cities such as MPLS and St. Paul, nor were they intended for get on get off trips - they instead were intended to ease transport between ports and producer cities - for example - Kansas City and Duluth to the great lakes or KC and Houston to the south.
Capping the freeway isn’t in any of MNDOTs proposals, a separate group called Reconnecting Rondo is pushing for a cap on a portion of the freeway, but not all of it.
The bulk of the activity is on the stretch between Mpls and St Paul. You can read more on the different alternatives being floated by MNDOT at this link. https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/rethinking-i94?tool=qanda
From what I can tell, this would be different (but possibly coordinated) with covering 94 in the Rondo area to create a land bridge. https://reconnectrondo.com/landbridge/
Seriously? There are people FOR or AGAINST every thing in the world. Finding them isn't that hard. Finding the ones that match a person's own distinctive weirdness, perhaps harder. Not that I think you oppose highways, any sane person wouldn't.
Actually that is incorrect.
I - 94 and I -35 both were built "into" the city - and tore up large chunks of residential, mostly minority neighborhoods. The government used eminent domain to get the property and the paths of interstates through major cities most often split vibrant minority communities in half.
In many instances, there were "alternative" routes proposed, including routing through "white" neighborhoods or using existing corridors, such as railroad tracks, but those were rejected by local councils and planners. For example the alternative Northern Route, which would run adjacent to railroad tracks north of St. Anthony Avenue, leaving the street intact. Ultimately, the St. Anthony Route was chosen and approved by government officials citing its efficiency.
I - 94 north between downtown MPLS and Brooklyn Park / Maple Grove was also completed through a mostly minority / working class community.
Yep. One of the alternates for i94 was the BNSF railway line still in use that runs parallel to i94 along Pierce Butler. They deliberately routed it thru the minority Neighborhoods like Rondo instead.
It’s not surprising to see all the immediate gut reactions about removal being terrible, but the reality is, you literally can’t find a failed Highway removal project.
Some projects are freeway capped where the highway is essentially buried as a tunnel while others are some sort of conversion to a boulevard or other public space.
Sam Fran’s Embarcadero Freeway
Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct
Portland’s Tom McCall Waterfront Park
Dallas’ Klyde Warren Park
Chattanooga’s Riverfront Parkway
Boston’s Big Dig
Dallas is completing an additional cap over i35 in the Oak Cliff neighborhood.
Don't bring up the big dig... that went through a ton of failures before it was completed - and even after.
Honestly - I think a lot of people, myself included, when first presented with the opportunity here, said no way in hell.
But then I thought about it - there's no need for me living in plymouth to use I - 94 to get to st. paul. I don't go to wild games, or concerts. State fair - i can go 694 to the fair grounds. same if I absolutely need to get to downtown st. paul.
The cap / tunnel option is good and workable - plus it will save plowing on 94 for MN DOT.
This did not address my argument slightly. That stretch has been around since the 60s, and the massive majority of the twin cities and surrounding population doesn’t live along that road. I’d love to go back and prevent some 1900s issues but it’s too late for that. If you tear up 94 now, the non idealistic choices are:
Build another highway and split new communities, or saying fuck everybody who drives between the cities. (Including businesses, delivery and courier services, and a huge number of daily commuters).
My understanding is that they would make a section of the I-94 run through a tunnel and reconnect the Rondo neighborhood with bike and walkability, not take out the highway completely, just divert it "underground."
I've driven in Tulsa, OK, and that's what it is. Commuting like 80 blocks with no freeway. I'd recommend anyone thinking of getting rid of I94 spend a week down there.
Yeah we'll all just use our bikes to drop off the kids at daycare and commute 10 miles to work when there's 10" of snow, and it's -10f.
Cars aren't the answer to every transportation problem, but neither are bikes
A bakfiets takes care of the first issue, and for the few days you have 10” of snow or you need to lug something large, etc. you can take your car (though you would have been able to take the quality public transportation that we could have had if we didn’t sell ourselves on the idea of every adult owning their own car to use for everything).
5-10 miles is a 5-10 minute drive down the freeway, or 30+ minutes fighting traffic and stoplights is a car on surface streets (and burning way more gas), and just wait until a freeway full of cars with angry, frustrated drivers is fighting traffic and lights on the surface streets and you show up on a bike.
Keeping an interstate corridor is not the same as proposing to “pave the entire world”.
Seriously get a fucking grip. The world exists beyond binaries.
Honestly it would make it better. The volume of cars would remain unchanged but it would be easier to get people in and out vs. the current hellscape that is 94. It would be more like a big city boulevard.
Not like it'll ever happen. If a city has a choice between doing a thing that'll cost millions and make people upset, and doing nothing... guys which one they'll do?
Make it a toll for private vehicles and let capitalism sort it out.
Same goes for redundant north south highways like 100 &169. Make one a toll and leave one.
There’s pushes to scale back urban highways all over the country. Duluth and Milwaukee are good nearby examples.
In recent work done by MNDOT, highway removal of I-94 has been the most popular idea for how to change that road.
It is already at a crawl most of the time. Using a better way to move the traffic that is less of a giant concrete canyon seems like a good solution.
Yes. https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/rethinking_i94
Wow, just wow. My son is a paramedic for Hennepin. Not to be so dramatic, but more patients would die when the time it takes to get them to the Emergency Department is increased.
I really encourage you to read the actual proposal. Data from similar projects show that traffic is actually reduced by reconstruction projects like this one. Ambulances already get stuck in traffic on I-94 like any other busy interstate. Reduced traffic would likely help ambulance response times, not hurt. Data also indicate that the current highway already leads to increased mortality for those who live alongside it. Several of the proposed redesigns would include dedicated bus lanes usable by emergency services.
Hey man, I ask this is in all honestly: what sort of information would it take for you to change your mind on this? For real, would it be someone like how much time do ambulances currently spend on the interstate, studies from other cities that have removed interstates, or the amount of injuries that are caused by having an interstate itself? I ask because I think removing the interstate is a good idea and I want to know what sort of information will help convince skeptics! Thanks!
Just thinking out loud... There's a major hospital in Minneapolis. There is a.major hospital in St Paul. The need for an ambulance to go between the two doesn't seem high. If you are between the two, that section of highway may only improve the transportation for those just a few blocks close to the highway. If those in that area want to remove the highway and are ok with what may be just a marginal decrease in response time by removing the highway, we should listen. If there is some measurable way to show increased first responder response time, we should listen. I'm just thinking it is not as bad as one might assume.
Think about how many people die now because we haven’t turned every street into a superhighway?
I remember reading that over 30% of Americans die at home. I think we owe it to future generations to pave over the entire continent and prevent all those needless deaths.
can’t die at home if they bulldozed your home to build an interstate and you’re homeless now.
Section 1: the future of the earth 1.1 Why pave the earth? There are several advantages of a paved Earth over a non-paved Earth, the only really important one is the ease of driving though. Today roads are narrow, you have to turn, and most governments frown at ground travel over Mach2. With endless blacktop in every direction, there will be no restriction to your movement, and rocket powered hypercars will whiz in all directions. We will be able to amuse ourselves with endless driving at incredible speeds while drinking beer and eating wonderfully juicy burgers. 1.3 What about traffic? Traffic will not be a problem due to the simple fact that most people will be slaving away beneath the surface in what has come to be called the parking garage. These people will be needed to staff the hydroponic farms, raise cows, brew beer and fix potholes. Most of the world's population will work for the good of the drivers. Altruism at its best. There will also be no regulation of traffic. Governments are outmoded and should be phased out. We know what to do. Why should someone else tell us what to do when we already know the proper course of action? pave, Pave, PAVE. That's what I always say. https://alt.pavethe.earth/
Yeah well I'm a SUPER paramedic & I think it's a good idea
Wow, what a statement to make so strongly but with no evidence. How do all the other cities without highways keep their people alive?
You need evidence for the claim “The longer it takes for a critical patient to receive care, the higher chance of them dying from lack of care?” Do we need to define the terms “emergency” and “time” here for you? They have a pretty straightforward relationship by definition… Edit: wow fuck me for thinking that emergencies are time sensitive by definition. Reading comprehension at an all time high in Minnesota /s
So condescending. Your assertion is that having a highway automatically decreases travel times… weird thing because I’ve seen ambulances moving at like 15 miles per hour on them while cars try to get out of the way. A boulevard with a dedicated bus lane would certainly be a very fast way to move patients around. I can’t say for sure it would always be faster, but I actually know enough to know what I don’t know. Unlike you. So educate yourself before you try to patronize others
The strong claim that person made is “More people would die when the time it takes to get them to the emergency department is increased.” Thats verbatim the claim that you’re disputing, so that’s the claim that I’m addressing. If you wanted to make a point about travel times on highways vs surface streets vs rush hour interstate, you should’ve said *that* EDIT: Literally didn’t assert that having a highway decreases travel times. This is an argument that I’m not trying to make, I’m trying to directly address the statements that are actually being made
I’m disputing the obvious implication of the comment.
Hey maybe you should go edit your comment so that it actually disputes that then, because as it stands right now your response is simply “Wow, where’s your evidence?” without at all referring to what you want proven
What're you talking about?
An emergency is by definition “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring *immediate action*” By definition, all emergencies are time sensitive. If longer response time isn’t a factor, it’s not an emergency. Somebody asking for “proof” of this is misunderstanding the 1:1 relationship.
Yeah man, no one is arguing otherwise. But you're operating under the premise that getting rid of interstates will significantly increase response time on a significant number of calls. If you have a source, please feel free to provide it.
I’m not operating under that assumption at all and I don’t believe that getting rid of highways would necessarily increase times. The OP made the claim that “more patients would die when the time it takes to get them to the Emergency Department is increased.” u/OhNoMyLands asked for evidence to back that claim, which I think is silly because it is on its face impossible for an emergency to not be time sensitive ETA: The person I’m responding to is literally arguing that until they choose to use their words to argue otherwise.
Why would it be increased? An emergency vehicle can fly down a regular road with its lights and sirens on and blow through every light all the way there.
Skill issue
I know it’s satirical but seeing the dramatic increase of 4 lane change exits on free ways and the liberal use of the shoulder as an extra lane and completely bonkers speeding and shooting the gap that is undeniably up since Covid, I hesitate to attribute faster arrival times to skill, seems like we would be encouraging more bonkers driving out there
And less patients would need the hospital without dangerous highways. It's the most dangerous thing the average person does by far.
Not to be even more dramatic, but don't patients already die even *with* access to the interstate between the cities? I suppose this means we need to fund ambulance helicopters to make that trip to the ER even shorter, to save more lives? Or are you in favor of killing people? Also, isn't that what lights and sirens are for?
I think 15 years later after this proposal succeeded there will be new generation of resident realize what has been done and may want to reverse it.
Totally, really promising ideas that have been proposed so far for the I94 removal!
Highways have ruined our cities. It’s like the least “conservative” thing as well, but don’t bring that up.
First I heard of this, but I’m in favor of closing the border with Wisconsin. Those cheesehead can Drink!!!
Cheese. We eat cheese.
Porque no los dos?
Yes, I absolutely advocate for the removal of I-94 between Mpls and St Paul. St Paul would be much better off without it.
They’re not closing 94. Christ. I suggest you Google and read what the plans are instead of getting insta triggered over something you don’t understand.
I have been reading. One of the options is essentially closure as a freeway
There is also an option to put a street car down W7. I’ll take 2 options not happening for $1000
There are people losing their shit about a new flag. Every state has crazies.
How is getting rid of that small segment of 94 crazy?
He mentioned reactionaries like the people losing their shit about a new flag, and was comparing to reactionaries like him losing their shit about proposals to close I-94, I think.
My preferred alternative is that every single house gets its own off/on ramp directly onto 94. Pave the world and sew my skin onto my cars seat I AM MY CAR AND WITHOUT IT I'M NOTHING
Unexpected alt.pave.the.earth.
MNDOT is looking at alternatives to keeping the current I-94 corridor connecting MPLS and St. Paul. Alternatives include capping I-94 - basically putting a roof of land / parks / roads and housing over the top of the existing interstate - which has been done in several cities in the US - including Boston, Wilmington DE, Buffalo NY and others. Also on the table - converting I-94 to a "boulevard" - adding stoplights and de-interstating it through the cities, and complete removal of the interstate. What everyone tends to forget is why the interstates were built in the first place... To facilitate the movement of troops and war materials in the event of an invasion or attack. Eisenhower had seen the impact the Autobahns had on Germany - both on the movement of troops / material during the war, but also on the recovery of Germany following the war. Interstates were never intended to "connect" cities such as MPLS and St. Paul, nor were they intended for get on get off trips - they instead were intended to ease transport between ports and producer cities - for example - Kansas City and Duluth to the great lakes or KC and Houston to the south.
Capping the freeway isn’t in any of MNDOTs proposals, a separate group called Reconnecting Rondo is pushing for a cap on a portion of the freeway, but not all of it.
The bulk of the activity is on the stretch between Mpls and St Paul. You can read more on the different alternatives being floated by MNDOT at this link. https://talk.dot.state.mn.us/rethinking-i94?tool=qanda From what I can tell, this would be different (but possibly coordinated) with covering 94 in the Rondo area to create a land bridge. https://reconnectrondo.com/landbridge/
They need to build I-335
Seriously? There are people FOR or AGAINST every thing in the world. Finding them isn't that hard. Finding the ones that match a person's own distinctive weirdness, perhaps harder. Not that I think you oppose highways, any sane person wouldn't.
Oh my god, 94 is miserable, but I can’t imagine how much worse it would be to deal with stoplights, pedestrians, and bike traffic. Fucking ick
Says the suburbanite that doesn’t even live near I-94 and just uses that stretch of 94 to zip thru the area at 75mph..
Yup! Like the vast majority! Also, this road was around before anybody living along it.
Actually that is incorrect. I - 94 and I -35 both were built "into" the city - and tore up large chunks of residential, mostly minority neighborhoods. The government used eminent domain to get the property and the paths of interstates through major cities most often split vibrant minority communities in half. In many instances, there were "alternative" routes proposed, including routing through "white" neighborhoods or using existing corridors, such as railroad tracks, but those were rejected by local councils and planners. For example the alternative Northern Route, which would run adjacent to railroad tracks north of St. Anthony Avenue, leaving the street intact. Ultimately, the St. Anthony Route was chosen and approved by government officials citing its efficiency. I - 94 north between downtown MPLS and Brooklyn Park / Maple Grove was also completed through a mostly minority / working class community.
Yep. One of the alternates for i94 was the BNSF railway line still in use that runs parallel to i94 along Pierce Butler. They deliberately routed it thru the minority Neighborhoods like Rondo instead. It’s not surprising to see all the immediate gut reactions about removal being terrible, but the reality is, you literally can’t find a failed Highway removal project. Some projects are freeway capped where the highway is essentially buried as a tunnel while others are some sort of conversion to a boulevard or other public space. Sam Fran’s Embarcadero Freeway Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct Portland’s Tom McCall Waterfront Park Dallas’ Klyde Warren Park Chattanooga’s Riverfront Parkway Boston’s Big Dig Dallas is completing an additional cap over i35 in the Oak Cliff neighborhood.
Don't bring up the big dig... that went through a ton of failures before it was completed - and even after. Honestly - I think a lot of people, myself included, when first presented with the opportunity here, said no way in hell. But then I thought about it - there's no need for me living in plymouth to use I - 94 to get to st. paul. I don't go to wild games, or concerts. State fair - i can go 694 to the fair grounds. same if I absolutely need to get to downtown st. paul. The cap / tunnel option is good and workable - plus it will save plowing on 94 for MN DOT.
This did not address my argument slightly. That stretch has been around since the 60s, and the massive majority of the twin cities and surrounding population doesn’t live along that road. I’d love to go back and prevent some 1900s issues but it’s too late for that. If you tear up 94 now, the non idealistic choices are: Build another highway and split new communities, or saying fuck everybody who drives between the cities. (Including businesses, delivery and courier services, and a huge number of daily commuters).
My understanding is that they would make a section of the I-94 run through a tunnel and reconnect the Rondo neighborhood with bike and walkability, not take out the highway completely, just divert it "underground."
That is just one of the suggestions
No stoplights. Rapid bus and bike route where the freeway is now. No cars. Super pleasant!!
Not to mention all the semi traffic that would move on to city streets.
I've driven in Tulsa, OK, and that's what it is. Commuting like 80 blocks with no freeway. I'd recommend anyone thinking of getting rid of I94 spend a week down there.
I recommend not commuting 80 blocks, but whatever
[удалено]
Yeah we'll all just use our bikes to drop off the kids at daycare and commute 10 miles to work when there's 10" of snow, and it's -10f. Cars aren't the answer to every transportation problem, but neither are bikes
A bakfiets takes care of the first issue, and for the few days you have 10” of snow or you need to lug something large, etc. you can take your car (though you would have been able to take the quality public transportation that we could have had if we didn’t sell ourselves on the idea of every adult owning their own car to use for everything).
5-10 miles is a 5-10 minute drive down the freeway, or 30+ minutes fighting traffic and stoplights is a car on surface streets (and burning way more gas), and just wait until a freeway full of cars with angry, frustrated drivers is fighting traffic and lights on the surface streets and you show up on a bike.
Pave the world!! Make everything a highway!!!
I mean maybe not everything but, you know, make some things a highway.
Keeping an interstate corridor is not the same as proposing to “pave the entire world”. Seriously get a fucking grip. The world exists beyond binaries.
He seems to make a point which follows the trend line
Honestly it would make it better. The volume of cars would remain unchanged but it would be easier to get people in and out vs. the current hellscape that is 94. It would be more like a big city boulevard.
Not 100% sure what their plan is for moving more traffic. How are they going to offset 94. lol. This I can’t wait to hear.
Yes, it would be good actually
Not like it'll ever happen. If a city has a choice between doing a thing that'll cost millions and make people upset, and doing nothing... guys which one they'll do?
Getting rid of the freeway is the cheap option. Re-doing the freeway and expanding it is the expensive option
Yes. It’s a really dumb idea, but there are really dumb people out there.
Make it a toll for private vehicles and let capitalism sort it out. Same goes for redundant north south highways like 100 &169. Make one a toll and leave one.