Given all of the unknowns that Minneapolis faces after the pandemic, I don't understand why the city is hellbent on pushing forward with controversial plans to rebuild Hennepin Avenue ("A plea for parking on Hennepin Avenue," Jan. 29). Each of these proposals is based on pre-pandemic bus ridership and traffic projections that may or may not come true when the virus is under control. At best, the predicted increases will likely be pushed out at least five years by the effects of the pandemic. Why not declare moratoriums on these projects during this period of time, see what future emerges for the city, and focus on recovery for the businesses along these important corridors? After the convulsions of the previous two years, it's better to do some hand-holding with these establishments than give them a near-term future of construction barricades followed by a loss of on-street parking.

Livability is important, but continued successful business investment will determine how well Minneapolis rebounds from two of the most difficult years in its history.

Gary Meyer, Minneapolis

•••

After reading the article "A plea for parking on Hennepin Avenue," I knew it was finally time to share my long-held idea publicly. Wouldn't it be great to board a free 30-seat electric bus (5-minute frequency) that runs counterclockwise around the Wedge? The route: south on Hennepin from the Basilica of St. Mary, left (east) at West Lake Street, left (north) at Lyndale Avenue S. to Loring Park. A nonprofit could invest in the small bus fleet and tweak it over time.

I call it the "Wedge-Around" for those needing a transport connection (without a vehicle needing a parking space) between any points of interest in, on or near the Wedge triangle. This is not an issue confined to parking. Certainly, our vehicle use habits have taken most us wherever we want. But all destinations can matter and libraries, schools, arts, entertainment, restaurants, parks, churches and even retail store fronts can be experienced without a car.

If Mother Earth were to comment on the issue, she might say, "For future generations to survive, build a designed infrastructure with 100% green energy principles everywhere, particularly transportation." We can all meet other needs as well: convenience, reducing congestion, getting cleaner air as well as safer environment to live in.

Bruce Berry, Minneapolis

•••

I am hearing a great deal of grumbling about "loss" of parking on Hennepin with the proposed plans. I personally feel this is not being discussed appropriately. On-street parking is not a given. The fact that Minneapolis has not been charging for parking along most of Hennepin is an indication that parking is taken for granted. The needs for real access (transit, bicycle, walking) far exceed the value of less than 100 car spaces (space that serves higher purpose than personal storage). I am dismayed that so many businesses are trying to hijack this project to protect on-street parking without really understanding the needs of their patrons. (Cars don't spend money, people spend money.)

I am further offended that they continue to appropriate the community of persons with disabilities in this argument (suggesting a lack of accessible designed parking — of which there is currently none), saying the proposals would negatively impact accessibility, when it is more realistic to suggest that a well-designed transit- and pedestrian-friendly Hennepin will best serve persons of all abilities and, most important, all incomes! Don't let the spurious rhetoric compromise this project and cause Hennepin to remain the domain of motorists. Let's get this done right, and right now!

Tony Hull, Minneapolis

The Minnesota legislators calling for an audit of the Southwest light-rail line ("SWLRT 'disaster' prompts audit call," Jan. 28) are properly dismayed by the cost inflation. Mary Pattock ("SWLRT wreck came despite plenty of warning," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 1) nicely summarizes why the Kenilworth route was so disastrous.

But the Kenilworth route was flawed in many ways.

The 2010 Met Council decision for Kenilworth over Nicollet Avenue and the Midtown Greenway through Uptown was based on ridership projections that failed to anticipate the explosion of residential construction in Uptown and downtown and because of the expense of a tunnel along Nicollet (a delicious irony). More deeply, the Kenilworth route will serve mainly commuters and is not a contribution to an urban transit system. The route saved a few minutes for commuters coming into downtown in the morning and leaving in the afternoon. Our experience in Minnesota is that urban routes (the Green and Blue lines) exceed ridership projections and commuter lines (Northstar) lag them.

Major transit routes are a major stimulus for growth. The Kenilworth route has practically no redevelopment potential and the wealthy residents along its path would succeed in blocking it for decades. A Nicollet route would stimulate growth in a critical city area. Finally, the Kenilworth route bypasses Uptown, contributing to its decline instead of allowing it to become a major transit hub.

The selection of the Kenilworth route was the biggest transit blunder in two generations.

Roundly rejecting the "'discomfort' logic and rhetoric" within public education is a laudable goal, but it is even more difficult to achieve than Prof. Jeffrey Aaron Snyder suggests ("Conservatives are new 'discomfort' police," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 1). If the problem with monitoring students' comfort is that it can be exploited by "bad actors to pursue ideological ends," then we face the seemingly impossible challenge of being politically evenhanded. Snyder correctly notes that conservatives are now employing the same language that "left-leaning folks" introduced decades ago — and right-wingers might actually be justified in saying, for what little it's worth, that "they started it."

I recall participating in a parent group summoned to advise on whether Khaled Hosseini's widely celebrated novel "The Kite Runner" should be dropped from the ninth-grade honors literature curriculum. Some opposed it on account of its graphic portrayal of adolescent rape, which was deemed likely to trigger adverse emotional responses. Although I could see the value in trying to introduce high schoolers to Afghan culture and history, the book chosen for the purpose by adults was, in my view, simply too "adult-oriented." Unfortunately there were few if any alternative texts available then.

That can hardly be said now about other potentially disturbing subjects like American slavery, the Holocaust and violence against women. Options abound; choosing among them requires cooperation among adults to craft wise decisions on behalf of young people. In any case, neither educators nor parents — least of all, politicians — should feel that their own exercise of free speech is implicated in this task. Instead it involves sympathetically recalling how we ourselves were taught about the harshest realities of life. The kids can take it from there.

John Ramsbottom, Minneapolis

If President Joe Biden had not "telegraphed his punches" and announced he was planning to choose a Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, we would not be hearing all the grumbling from the Republicans about "affirmative action" ("Court's too important for diversity hires," Opinion Exchange, Jan. 31). He could have simply conducted a wide search and then selected a nominee who happened to be Black and female.

Lisa Wersal, Vadnais Heights