Readers Write (April 14): U.S. Bank stadium and birds, transportation policy, 35W and 3rd Avenue projects, Minneapolis mayor and council travel, space exploration

When I opened my paper Wednesday and saw the stunning photo of the new U.S. Bank Stadium on the front page, I was struck by the building's large scale and unusual shape — almost like one of the new stealth ships being built for the U.S. Navy — but also because the entire downtown Minneapolis skyline was reflected in its side. The total area of glass being used for the stadium is more than 10 acres. For many, the stadium is a thing of beauty, but for me, I see a killing machine for songbirds. Despite the efforts of many conservation groups to get bird-safe glass installed, the owners refused, citing the cost. Large volumes of bird strikes will occur, especially during the spring migration. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be called upon to investigate whether the owners violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes it unlawful for anyone in the U.S. to "take" (i.e., kill) a migratory bird. I encourage anyone witnessing the deaths of large numbers of birds to send photos documenting these kills to the Twin Cities Field Office at TwinCities@fws.gov. Then it becomes the responsibility of the service to enforce the act.

The writer is a retired fish and wildlife biologist.

The April 11 commentary by the Blue Earth and Ramsey County commissioners arguing for a comprehensive transportation funding package was absolutely correct. The only shortfall was that while it argued for funding for "roads, bridges and transit," no mention was made of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Yes, Minnesota must rebuild its roads and bridges and modernize its transit system. But it also needs to improve and expand its pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. More Minnesotans are walking and biking, and are demanding better crosswalks, lighting, sidewalks and safer bicycle routes.

That growing demand is evident by the backlog of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects in the state. An analysis of existing Minnesota city and county pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure requests found $1.3 billion in unmet needs for sidewalks, safer intersections and bike routes. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has estimated that it will have only half the revenue needed for pedestrian and bicycle investments in the state's trunk highway corridors.

The commentary cited fatalities on rural roads as a reason for comprehensive funding. Here's an argument for including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in that funding package: In 2013, 11 percent of traffic fatalities in Minnesota involved people who were walking or bicycling, and more than 1,680 pedestrians and bicyclists were injured.

If the Legislature passes a comprehensive transportation infrastructure funding bill (which it should), it cannot leave the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists — including children and seniors — behind. The needs are too vast and the safety impacts of such an omission would be too great.

• • •

The April 5 story about the funding needs of Interstate 35W ("A plea from planners: Don't drag out I-35W 'torture' ") was very instructive — not only about the clear need for projects to be done efficiently by replacing and adding all of the components (highway, bridges, transit, bicycle and pedestrian connections) simultaneously, but also about the need for investing in all forms of transportation at once. The takeaway for the Legislature is that if you are going to fund the rebuilding of the state's roads and bridges, you should also fund transit and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Doing that is not only more efficient, it is smarter because it will save you money in the long run.

As a multimodal resident of one of the neighborhoods bordering the affected part of the I-35W project, I urge our decisionmakers to consider the magnitude of this project and to approach it holistically. My family and I want to feel safe and comfortable in this area whether we are driving, taking the bus, biking or walking.

• • •

The writer from the Minneapolis Pedestrian Advisory Committee missed some crucial points in her April 12 letter "The three-lane option is best." Indeed, the Minneapolis City Council will be voting this Friday on the recommended design for 3rd Avenue in downtown Minneapolis that would keep intact the two lanes of traffic each way while incorporating a new protected bike lane. To be clear, office building owners and managers and the majority of their tenants are supportive of bike commuters, and as such, are making large, private investments to accommodate the riders. The notion that the four traffic lanes are "supported by a handful of downtown business owners" is absurd. This "handful" represents nearly 19,000 downtown Minneapolis workers, many of whom operate vehicles. Beyond personal vehicles, this crucial street is used by service vehicles, taxis, Metro Transit, shuttle buses and, more important, emergency vehicles. To constrict 3rd Avenue to a single lane of traffic in each direction would certainly cause gridlock.

With regard to the greening of downtown Minneapolis, the two medians in question were actually privately funded by those same stakeholders, who are now very concerned about the drastic increase in congestion. In addition, several property owners have identified a number of additional opportunities on privately owned property that can further enhance the green nature of the corridor, offsetting the square footage lost in the medians.

We encourage the Minneapolis City Council to approve the recommended four traffic lanes, which will serve the needs of all.

Lewis is executive director of the Building Owners and Managers Association Greater Minneapolis. Cramer is president and CEO of the Minneapolis Downtown Council and Downtown Improvement District.

What three things did each of our world travelers learn ("Mpls. funded travel for council," April 11)? What did they do with this knowledge? The Star Tribune rarely gets into the nitty-gritty, preferring the gloss. I'd like to know what rewards we citizens reaped for the costs we have incurred. Let's be tangible!

• • •

Regarding the proposed probes to Alpha Centauri ("Explorers see a fleet of tiny robots roving stars," April 13): Pure scientific inquiry is important, as evidenced by the great knowledge we have gained from the Hubble Telescope. However, the project would take a great deal of scientific brainpower and up to $10 billion. Wouldn't those resources be better devoted to addressing the immediate issue of climate change?