Community Backlash Against the Summit Avenue Regional Trail

So here's the lowdown on this whole deal with the Summit Avenue Regional Trail — folks are tossing around all sorts of reasons why they think it’s a bad idea. For starters, some are saying there’s no point in building a new bike and pedestrian trail ('cause apparently, streets are safer for biking?). Then, there’s this tall tale about chopping down hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of trees to make room for the trail. Others complain that the trails we already have aren’t getting enough foot and tire traffic to justify a new one.

Concerns Over City Budget and Historic Preservation

And, hey, can the city even afford to splash out on this? Plus, some are getting all nostalgic, arguing that for the sake of historic preservation, we should just scrap the whole idea. And of course, there’s talk about some behind-the-scenes number fudging by the planners. Then there’s the whole kerfuffle about people losing street parking right outside their houses and wanting compensation for it. It seems like everyone’s got something to say about it, and I might have missed a couple of other gripes along the way.

Need for Better-Designed Cycling Infrastructure

Here’s the thing though — the bike/pedestrian trails in St. Paul as they stand are kinda skirting around the edges of the city, which makes biking from one side to the other a bit of a daredevil stunt at times. St. Paul could really do with more and better-planned trails to fix this mishmash.

Exaggeration of Environmental Impact

Also, I think the whole tree-cutting drama might be blown a bit out of proportion. From what I understand, the number of trees supposedly being axed sounds highly inflated. Just to throw some numbers at you, based on what my e-bike’s meter says, I’ve saved about 32 trees pedaling around for 2,500 miles. If you do the math, that probably beats the number of trees they’re planning to cut by a long shot. Plus, the trees they’re talking about, like maples and river birches, grow back pretty quickly and are a real treat to look at.

The Case for Historical Authenticity and Improved Safety

Now, if we’re playing the "historical authenticity" card, why not go all the way? Picture this: Summit Avenue, restored to its original, 19th-century glory — no cars, no traffic lights, just dirt roads. Maybe even throw in a couple of gas lights and horse-drawn carriages. Sounds quaint, but come on, it’s not exactly practical, right?

Increasing Cyclist Engagement

As for the claim that barely any cyclists are using the current trails, that’s just not true. If anything, more bikers would hop on if they felt safer. And despite what some might say, Summit Avenue already sees a decent cyclist crowd. Take it from me and my senior cyclist buddies — we’d be there more often if it just felt a bit safer. Plus, think about all the students from the nearby colleges who would benefit from a smoother ride along Summit. This could be a game changer for them.

Addressing Financial Concerns and Parking Issues

Regarding the cost, I reckon if drivers were paying their fair share for roadwork and maintenance, money wouldn’t even be an issue. And about losing parking space — those streets aren’t anyone’s private property. They’re owned by the city, so really, you can’t claim a loss on something you never owned.

Reflections on St. Paul’s Progressiveness and Infrastructure Needs

I’ve grown up here in St. Paul, and it’s been a solid place to be. It’s progressive, for the most part, though sometimes it feels like it drags its feet a little, especially when compared to Minneapolis and their snazzy bike lanes. It’s about time we step up and build that trail.

Miscellaneous Thoughts on Technology and Politics

Oh, and by the way, the interview with Jacob Trippel in the Pioneer Press? That was something. The guy’s big on AI and quantum computing but seems a bit out of his depth when it comes to the tech specifics. Constantly changing your password? Not the best move. A better bet is to pick a good, strong one and stick with it, maybe backed up by some biometric checks like a fingerprint or facial recognition. Just keep it simple and safe. Here’s a kicker though: I once read about a guy who got so ticked off by a political maneuver in Washington, D.C. that he up and threw a sandwich at a customs officer. A whole sandwich! Led to a felony charge, believe it or not. And then there’s this ongoing thing with Trump. He's back, and it’s not exactly sunshine and rainbows. The landscape’s changing, and not necessarily for the better. It feels like we’re seeing more...