Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In the Thursday counterpoint "Curb your lack of enthusiasm for traffic calming, bike infrastructure" (Opinion Exchange), Liam Mullen makes some good points. Consideration for pedestrian and bicycle traffic is important. But it is wrong for those advocates to give so little respect to vehicular traffic. I own 16 retail outlets in brick-and-mortar establishments, and virtually none of my customers arrive on bicycles, nor do they walk there from their homes. Our economy is based almost entirely on vehicular traffic, and we need to respect that fact and not be so cavalier about eliminating driving lanes and parking space. When is the last time you saw someone riding out of Home Depot on their bicycle carrying a load of Sheetrock?

Earl Faulkner Sr., Edina

•••

With all the discussion and soul-searching about the past and future of Interstate 94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul ("Twin Cities: Better without I-94," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 10), I have not heard one peep about the Lowry Tunnel congestion and capacity. The eastbound lane of Interstate 394 heading into the tunnel has always had miles-long backups stretching far beyond normal rush hours since the day it was opened 20+ years ago — accommodating just a single lane of traffic. Yet, there appears to be a lack of planning alternatives on the table, knowing that any improvements/resolution to this tunnel issue would take more than a decade to implement. I think considering alternatives to the I-94 freeway connection offers interesting prospects, but the existing I-94 freeway between Minneapolis and St. Paul functions adequately as is, while the Lowry Tunnel is currently inadequate.

Peter Pfister, Golden Valley

•••

"Twin Cities: Better without I-94" by Elizabeth Wrigley-Field was visionary and inspiring. The writer highlighted the very sad state of affairs that climate change is wreaking on Minnesota while inviting productive action as she wrote, "If the air is going to get much worse in ways we can't control, we should try to clean it up in absolutely every way we can."

This summer has brought the impact of climate change to our doorstep. It's no longer possible to pretend it may be affecting other places and people, but not us. Thank you for running commentaries and editorials that help us grow in understanding of climate change and also inspire action and hope for doing what we can do to improve conditions for ourselves and, especially, for future generations.

Julie Remington, St. Paul

•••

In a recent letter to the editor ("Streets are unsafe, but not like that," Readers Write, Aug. 7), the writer took exception to a previous commentary by Tim Keane addressing the topic of unsafe streets ("Mpls. streets are becoming unsafe, undriveable," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 4). The letter writer claimed he had hoped for a piece addressing reckless drivers but instead found one discussing unsafe street design. He then challenged "car-centric zealots" to spend a week using "bus, bike and pedestrian transportation systems and report back on their experiences."

I am accepting the letter writer's challenge. As a septuagenarian Uptown resident who walks, bicycles and drives a car, I can relate to both motorists and pedestrians. It is true that some motorists drive too fast, have poor lane discipline and blow through stoplights. However, when I am walking on the sidewalks of my Uptown neighborhood, I am often driven off the sidewalks by motorized scooters or by bicyclists who choose to use the sidewalk even though 28th Street has a bicycle lane. When I am crossing 28th at a crosswalk, most drivers stop for the light and let me cross, while most bicyclists blow through the light, heedless of my presence or safety. Bad behavior is not limited to motorists.

Bad street design is a legitimate concern. Engineering gridlock to discourage driving is especially detrimental to older folks who may no longer be able to safely walk, cycle or "roll" — whatever that means. Buses are fine for going north to downtown or east to St. Paul but are of little avail to those who work, shop or socialize with friends and family in the suburbs. Motorists need to be able to access major roads that lead out of the city. Oh, and urban planners seem to ignore our miserable winter travel conditions. A four-block walk during January can be perilous indeed!

Donald Wolesky, Minneapolis

Samuel Alito, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, gave a friendly interview to a Wall Street Journal writer last week who also is a lawyer and will argue a case before the Supreme Court in its next term. Putting aside the clear ethical conflict of interest there, what bothers me as much is this statement Alito made to the writers: "No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period." He was concerned about court ethics legislation moving through the U.S. Senate. From this statement, it is apparent that Justice Alito does not know the Constitution — although we have appointed him to be an expert on the document. Or at least to know what it says. One wonders whether he's even read it. To quote the United States Constitution at Article III, section 2, clause 2:

"[T]he supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

In other words, Congress in general can tell the Supreme Court what cases it can preside over. One good idea: Pass a law requiring that the Supreme Court may only overrule or interpret a statute by a supermajority vote of its members, say a seven-member majority. This would bring far more consensus-building on the court and much greater confidence among the public that a nonpartisan and fair decision, based on the rule of law, has been rendered.

David F. Fisher, Bloomington

The writer is a lawyer and law professor.

Thank you for the excellent analysis of the potential presidential run of my representative, Dean Phillips ("History casts shadow on a Phillips run," Aug. 6, and "Phillips undecided on presidential run," Aug. 7). I agree that challengers to incumbents generally don't fare well, but here we have an historically unique situation of an octogenarian president and an apparently inept vice president on the presumptive ticket. Phillips, in his CBS "Face the Nation" interview on Aug. 6, rightly called for Democrats to host a competition to identify the most capable person to head the ticket, not a coronation of the sitting president. President Joe Biden has done a great job, but now is the time to tell him to enjoy retirement. Another alternative being raised is for Biden to run as the vice presidential candidate, remaining a resource for the next generation of leaders. The Democratic Party is currently flush with talented potential leaders capable of defeating Trump (the likely GOP candidate) and assuming the presidency. (My personal favorite is Sen. Amy Klobuchar.) Taking a close look at this vibrant field of talent would not be a waste of time, energy or money. Rather, it would be a wise investment in the future of this country. Joe, you've done a great job, and we are grateful, but now is the time to tend to your family and remain a resource for the next generation of leaders.

Sandra Henkels Johnson, Minnetonka