Build the bike trail on Summit
Regarding the Summit Avenue Regional Trail, opponents have given a variety of reasons not to build a bike/pedestrian way:
1. It’s not needed (you’re safer biking in the street).
2. Hundreds (thousands?) of trees will be cut down because of the trail.
3. The current bike/pedestrian trails aren’t used enough.
4. The city can’t afford the trail.
5. For reasons of historic preservation, the trail should be nixed.
6. Planners violated data practices requirements.
7. Residents should be compensated for the loss of street parking in front of their homes.
The list goes on, and I’m sure I’ve missed a few excuses raised by opponents.
Current dedicated bike/pedestrian trails in St. Paul tend to run near the perimeter of the city, making it difficult and often unsafe to try to go north-south or east-west through the city by bike. St. Paul needs more and better bike/pedestrian trails to address this issue.
I’m guessing that the number of trees that trail opponents claim will be cut down is greatly exaggerated. As a far as saving trees is concerned, a gauge on my e-bike says that in the 2,500 miles I’ve pedaled on that bike, I’ve saved exactly 32 trees. Multiply that number by a factor of hundreds, and you can see that bicyclists have saved more trees than will ever be removed when the Summit Avenue Regional Trail is completed. By the way, maples and river birch, among other species, are fast growing trees that provide great beauty and shade. I learned that in forestry school.
In the name of historic preservation, why not return Summit Avenue to the way it was when it was when homes were first built there in the 19th century? That would mean no cars and no stoplights. Streets, curbs and gutters would need to be torn up and replaced with a dirt road. Perhaps a few gas lights and electric street lamps would light up the night. Horse and buggies would be the only vehicles allowed.
The claim that few bicyclists use Summit Avenue is pure malarkey, and so is the notion that you’re better off biking in the street. More cyclists would bike on Summit if a safe bike/pedestrian trail were put in. Nevertheless, Summit Avenue is often very busy with cyclists. I know of a couple who, until last year, lived on Summit near the intersection with Ramsey Hill. Avid bicyclists, they almost never used the current Summit Avenue bikeway near their home because they felt it was unsafe. My senior citizen bicycling club occasionally bikes on Summit Avenue, but it’s definitely not our favorite route in the metro area. We would bike it more often if there was a better bike/pedestrian trail.
With all of the students at nearby colleges and universities, the city should really be trying to accommodate them. An improved bikeway along Summit would better meet their needs.
As far as affordability is concerned, if motorists paid their fare share for the cost of building, maintaining, plowing and policing public roadways, cost would not be an issue.
As far as compensating residents for the loss of on-street parking. Those streets do not belong to you. They belong to the city. You can’t get reimbursed for the loss of something that you never owned in the first place.
I grew up in St. Paul. It was a wonderful place to come of age. It’s a very progressive city, for the most part. However, there has always been a reactionary attitude among many of its citizens, as exhibited in the city’s inferiority-complex regarding Minneapolis (pssst, the city across the river has better bikeways!). A much needed improvement to St. Paul’s infrastructure is being held back by a lack of forward thinking. It’s time to build the Summit Avenue Regional Trail.
M.L. Kluznik, Mendota Heights
Worried about hacking? Conventional precautions work
I was very disappointed by the Pioneer Press’s uncritical interview of Jacob Trippel on Aug. 1, on the front page. Among other issues, Trippel hypes AI and quantum computing and makes outdated recommendations about security.
This should perhaps be unsurprising: Trippel’s background is primarily in business and education, not software development or security. His LinkedIn lists him as the CTO of an AI-related startup, giving him ample incentive to emphasize the hype around AI.
To correct the most egregious statements:
Frequent password changes are counterproductive, leading people to forget them; to use short, simple passwords that are easily broken; and to reuse them across services. Lengthy passwords, infrequently changed, never reused and securely stored in a password manager, are a far superior approach.
More generally, access security is best accomplished by using a combination of three methods: something you are (biometrics, face or fingerprint); something you know (password); something you have (phone, physical key). Strong security relies on at least two of these. Using biometrics alone is foolhardy; if data is stored and compromised, it’s much easier to change your password than your face. If you are concerned about security, get a hardware authentication device for two-factor authentication.
While vulnerabilities are a problem, most hacks come through social engineering: phishing and scams routed through normal phone calls and email. Keep your software up-to-date, use multi-factor authentication, and be wary of unfamiliar callers. That will cover most ordinary threats.
Quantum computing is far from ready for any practical applications. Therefore, quantum hacking is even less likely than being hacked by a nation-state actor with conventional computers. Unless you have reason to be a high-profile target, you should worry more about social engineering.
Quantum computing is not magic; neither is AI. Current “AI” is a marketing label for a specific flavor of the banal machine learning I’ve been working in for a decade. AI has applications – many of which are not yet realized.
In short, you’ll likely be fine with conventional precautions – and ignoring the hype.
Rachel Reddick, St. Paul
Related Articles
Bill Dudley: The Fed’s under siege. It’ll be just fine
Letters: Reassuring to see work in St. Paul toward understanding our common humanity
Other voices: Gerrymandering is a real threat. Get your heads on straight, partisans
Mark Gongloff: Pope Leo is becoming the climate champion we need
Marc Champion: Israel is heading toward an isolation it can’t afford
Felonious sandwich-flinging
I was first attracted by the headline, “Man charged with assault with a sandwich.” I thought, now that’s intriguing. Apparently the influx of Donald Trump’s police distraction into Washington, D.C., irritated one of the locals so much that he felt compelled to yell “fascists” at Customs and Border Protection officers. Not that they were fascists or agents of a fascist or just guys trying to do a job, didn’t dissuade him from repeatedly hurling this accusation, until such time as his frustration compelled him to hurl something else. The “else”, conveniently at hand, was a recently purchased sub type sandwich, which he directed, with an accurate overhand throw, to the chest of the source of his irritation. It was reported that the officer, who was the target of this edible missile, did not appear injured. He was truly fortunate, as who knows what damage a hard-crust ciabatta, might have done.
The cost for this wayward expression of political frustration, other than the $15 or so for the sandwich, is a felony charge. A Footlong Felony no doubt.
Bob Emery, Mendota Heights
But how are we doing today?
On Aug. 14, a total of eight letters to the editor appeared here, each of them bad-mouthing Trump. I would inquire, how is the border today, how are consumer prices, the stock market, foreign trade, arrests of illegals, positive military action and billions of fraudulent dollars eliminated?
Crafting eight letters bad-mouthing goofy Gov. Walz would take anyone conscious about eight minutes.
Jon Swenson, Eagan
Can’t afford to become numb or passive
History teaches that democracy rarely collapses all at once — it erodes when citizens grow weary and leaders weaponize chaos. We are seeing this now, in real time. Donald Trump, now back in the White House, is not leading with vision or unity. He is ruling by grievance, fear and retribution.
His tactics are dangerously familiar: overwhelm the public with lies, discredit institutions and accuse others of the very wrongs he commits. Those who challenge him face a flood of attacks, investigations or public shaming. This is not normal. It is a calculated effort to weaken resistance and consolidate unchecked power.
We cannot afford to become numb or passive. The longer we tolerate this assault on truth and democratic norms, the more fragile our republic becomes.
We need leadership grounded in integrity, humility and service to the common good — not one man’s ego or vendettas. If we care about the future of this country, now is the time to speak, act, and choose differently.
Jane White Schneeweis, Mahtomedi
Related Articles
Letters: Reassuring to see work in St. Paul toward understanding our common humanity
Here’s who is running for St. Paul mayor
Probation officer’s spot check finds unconscious woman in sex offender’s St. Paul apartment
MPR parent company lays off 30 employees following federal, state cuts
St. Paul celebrated end of WWII with impromptu parades, prayer services
Leave a Reply