I started doing local semi-truck deliveries in 1985. Truck route signage has been on White Bear and Stillwater avenues and Seventh and Hazel streets as long as I can remember.

Stillwater Avenue east of White Bear Avenue has been the preferred truck route for access to White Bear Avenue. The only time you would use Seventh Street is if you were continuing on Seventh. The intersection of White Bear and Seventh is too congested for semi-trucks to negotiate the corners. As soon as a car stops in the left lane at the traffic light a semi-truck can no longer make the corner.

I have had to back up my car at the stoplight for a firetruck turning off Seventh on to White Bear. Stillwater Avenue and Seventh Street are both the same, same width, one lane in each direction with parking lanes, but the combination of less car traffic and restricted on-street parking near the intersection on Stillwater give the semi-trucks ample room to corner.

The reference to “double-bottom” trailers is incorrect; they are not “small to midsize trucks” but two 28-foot trailers pulled by a semi, upward of 80 feet total. Double trailers are allowed only on select truck routes.

I would like to think the uptick in semi traffic is due to the economy on the upswing; I would not be surprised if the semi counts in the 1990s were double that of today.

Michael Rodewald, St. Paul

The source of the problem

An article of Jan. 21, 2019 “Army Corps of Engineers pursue Lake Pepin island project,” is trying to put a positive spin on a huge environmental problem that is the failure by state and federal agencies to address the massive amounts of sediment that is turning the Mississippi River into mud flats.

The proposed cost of the Lake Pepin Island Project is estimated between $10 million and $20 million, and that, according to the article, provides only an estimated three years of storage for the sediment, which is being dredged out of the Mississippi River. The dredging is required to maintain a navigable channel for commercial traffic. The Army Corps of Engineers is dealing with the same problem just west of the Hastings Dam.

Government is great at framing problems, but not effective at addressing solutions. Because the State of Minnesota has failed to address the source of the sediment discharge into the Mississippi River, it now needs to multi-task (a big problem for government). This will require these governmental agencies to not only focus on how to spend millions of dollars dealing with the dredged-up sediment, but also they must tackle the problem at the source of the sediment discharge into the Mississippi River.

The “State of the River Report 2016” was published by Friends of the Mississippi River and National Park Service’s Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. This publication, which I think was excellently prepared, stated that 76 percent of the sediment that is turning the Mississippi River into mud flats, is coming from the Minnesota River. The sediment increase coming from the Minnesota River is largely the result of artificial agricultural drainage, which includes subsurface drain tiling. Water that used to be naturally ponded on the surface and evaporated is being routed through the artificial drain tile. As a result less water is evaporating, while most is directed through drain tile and into the Minnesota River.

What will it take to get our state government to address the source of the problem?

Thomas Hunter, Cottage Grove

Generating revenue

Hats off to the House of Hope Presbyterian Church on Summit Avenue. They are selling three pieces of property — two homes and one lot adjacent to their church property. This puts these three tax-exempt properties back on the tax rolls. Hallelujah! This will generate revenue for the City of St Paul.

The House of Hope Church needs to do one more thing. They need to donate 1.5 percent of their operating budget to the City of St Paul for homeless programs. We need the Presbyterians to step up to the plate because to my knowledge no other tax-exempt organization has.

Lyle Nelson, St. Paul

A different sort of wall

The U.S. Department of Defense is contemplating building a wall (“Navy wants a wall to stave off climate change,” Feb. 3), and it’s a very different sort of wall from the one that led us into the paralysis of a government shutdown.

It is designed to protect Navy Yard in our nation’s capital from flooding due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. Meanwhile, just a mile away from Navy Yard in the U.S. House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the 2019 Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, the first really serious attempt to tackle carbon pollution in a decade. Related Articles Letters: Here’s why we need ‘Black Lives Matter’ signs

If trespassing, stealing and shutting down speech is what you stand for … Tainted.

Letters: Sure, the ‘U’ needs money, but at what price?

Letters: Only tax revenue matters, St. Paul City Council? What about the educational value of charter schools?

Noah Smith: Trump’s trade war failed. Could Biden do better?

Americans have already come together on the issue of climate change. Fully 73 percent of us believe that global warming will harm future generations, and an overwhelming 86 percent support the promise of renewable energy (Yale Climate Opinion Maps). Now is the time to reach out to those who represent us in Congress and ask them to support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. They cannot know what we want unless we tell them.

Mary Haltvick, Shoreview