Long Lake Bypass Thoughts

Ever since construction began in 2003 to prepare for a bypass road that relocated US-12 in Long Lake, I followed the project on MNDOT's website with great interest. The Super Two Highway design would improve traffic flow by limiting the number of at-grade crossings and keep large trucks out of downtown Long Lake. The theory behind this design is good. The reality shows us several flaws in the theory.

Due to construction issues (namely engineering through a swamp), we had to wait until late 2009 to finally drive this new stretch of roadway. Oh the joy when it opened to all traffic. Then we drove it and discovered it wasn't quite the utopia we hoped for.

Theory: Traffic flow
Reality: Unexpected backups during rush hour

Why does eastbound traffic slow during the morning rush? At the east end of the bypass, traffic from Wayzata Blvd does not have to merge with US-12 traffic because they continue as separate lanes. However, the lane from the bypass becomes the HOV lane, and a new lane forms to the right after Wayzata Blvd joins the highway. The HOV lane should magically appear on the left. I would repaint the lines where Wayzata Blvd joins US-12 so that no one has to change lanes.

I oppose adding lanes to the bypass...except possibly going east. The Maple Plain stoplight is still a bottleneck for westbound traffic. Remember how three lanes merged into one before the bypass opened? MNDOT improved this problem by peeling off one lane at a time, exit only first at Co Rd 15, then at Wayzata Blvd. To create a second westbound lane without changing traffic flow in Maple Plain would simply cause a different jam. Eventually it has to reduce to one lane. For a comparison, look at MN-55 west of Hamel (near Arrowhead Drive).

Theory: Wider lanes are safer
Reality: Fatal crashes

On June 19, 2012, a fatal accident between a 1992 Honda Accord and a Mack semi truck (guess who won...) closed US-12 during the morning rush hour. Over the previous weekend, MNDOT shut down the bypass to mill rumble strips into the center lines. Obviously those aren't the correct solution. In this crash, the driver of the Accord lost control of his vehicle, hit a retaining wall, and careened into the path of the semi. It was not a case of driver stupidity. (Sometimes people are driving too fast. Other people think the left lane is a passing lane rather than oncoming traffic.) This type of accident should be preventable.

Accidents on the bypass (not just fatal crashes) prove another limitation. Large crashes require the entire 4-mile stretch to close, and everyone is detoured through Long Lake, which has a slower speed limit and several stoplights. Smaller accidents slow all traffic in the bypass, and since there are no road accesses, you are stuck in the "flow" of traffic unless you had the foresight to exit to Wayzata Blvd.

Theory: Long Lake reclaimed its downtown
Reality: Downtown hasn't changed much.

Many business and city leaders feared that routing traffic out of downtown would hurt businesses that rely on visibility from passing motorists. It's hard to tell if this has been the case. Sure, Burger King closed, but it was not very busy before the bypass. The economy may have had more of an effect of business life than changing the traffic pattern.

I sometimes choose to exit into Long Lake by choice. Primarily for predictability. From the Wayzata Blvd exit, I cannot tell how well the next 4 miles of US-12 is moving or where the congestion starts from the Maple Plain stoplight. The bypass may be faster or slower depending on traffic, but the slower speed limits and stoplights in Long Lake make my drive time more consistent. Since most vehicles stay on the bypass, finding less traffic in town reduces frustration of dealing with other drivers. In my opinion it's better to move steadily on a longer, slower route than fight the stop-/slow-and-go traffic on a major road.

How can the bypass be fixed? Some suggest that it should be a four-lane road. As mentioned already, I disagree with adding lanes. Also, I think there are right-of-way issues with the railroad tracks the restrict the space available for driving lanes and shoulders.

A common suggestion is a median to separate the lanes. While I have been opposed to that idea because it removes the option of passing a slow vehicle, I am starting to believe it is the best option for safety. First, any median would remove the illusion that the roadway has two lanes of traffic traveling in the same direction. Second, it would prevent head-on crashes where a vehicle would cross the center line. The shoulders are large enough for disabled or emergency vehicles to stop while allowing traffic to continue past them in the normal driving lane. Crews have been installing cable medians on I-94 to prevent vehicles from crossing into oncoming traffic. Perhaps they need to do the same for the Long Lake bypass.

Whatever the solution, the status quo has issues. Engineers at MNDOT must review the section of highway for available safety options. Signs and rumble strips are cheap, but they require driver awareness. If drivers were aware, they wouldn't need the extra warnings. It's possible that a correction to the safety specifications will also improve the issues with congestion. But we'll probably have to wait years to find out. For now I'll keep driving it and looking at alternative routes in the area.

Obama Trumps Trump

On May 1, President Obama addressed the nation to share this headline: Osama Bin Laden is dead! However, the news analysts cut away from regularly scheduled television shows 45-60 minutes in advance to prepare for Obama to take his position at the podium. What was originally scheduled for 9:30 PM EDT finally came an hour later because Obama was carefully wording his speech for the American public.

On April 27, President Obama released his birth certificate to the public as proof that he is a U.S. citizen despite having a Kenyan father. The rumor was revived recently by potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Why release it now? Obama directed his office to release the certificate because the Commander-In-Chief didn't believe the distraction was good for the country.

Here's the interesting part: In order to give his speech, Obama interrupted the final 15 minutes of "Celebrity Apprentice." After roasting Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner, Obama got one last laugh.

NRA vs. Gun Control

The Caller ID read "NRA". Do I even answer? Sure, let's hear what they have to say. (The conversation below is paraphrased.)

NRA: "Let me ask when was the last time you went shooting or hunting?"
Me: "It's been a couple years."
NRA: "I understand. I have boys age 7 and 2."
Did he just assume I'm married with kids and the reason I haven't been out with a gun is due to my family?

NRA: "Have you heard about the United Nations Small Arms Treaty? Obama supports it. They want to change our rights under the 2nd Amendment. What do you think about it?"
Me: "Well, I think the U.N. does lots of good stuff and has a role in governing the world, but the 2nd Amendment is important to Americans."
NRA: "I agree with what you said. Maybe I should state the question another way. The U.N. has already put gun control laws into effect in Canada. Do you want that to happen here?"

He said some other stuff...then he got to the point of the conversation.
NRA: "We need to let Congress know that we need to protect American gun rights. We have a membership option for you. Five years for $125 or three years for $100. Which one can I mark you down for?"
Me: "While I support the 2nd Amendment, I am not going to join the NRA. Lobbyists don't need my money."
NRA: "We need the lobbies to keep an eye on our elected officials. After they get into office, they flip-flop on their campaign promises. How do we let our Senators and Representatives know what the people think? I can do two years for $60."
Me: "I'm sticking to what I said. I'm not joining the NRA."
NRA: "Obama has support in the Senate. Bill HR 45 is already being discussed. How about one year for $30?"
Me: "No, I'm not joining the NRA."
NRA: "Thank you for letting me share this information."

Okay, Google, what do you know about HR 45? According to OpenCongress.org, "H.R.45 - Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" was introduced 1/6/09 and had little other action thereafter. Further, "This is a fringe bill with no co-sponsors that has virtually zero chance of becoming law." That's not very reliable for an argument about supporting the NRA fight against gun control.

Let's also look up the argument about Obama using the United Nations to force gun control in the United States. This article makes some valid points about American civics. Do you notice the date of the post? May 2010. Again not very current. The article headline and subtitle reads, "Will Obama Sign U.N. Gun Control Treaty? U.N. Gun Control treaty is worth keeping an eye on but it is not a current threat."

A May 27, 2010, editorial in the Washington Times says, "The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever." Wait, isn't this the opposite claim of the prior article?

Which article do I believe? An editorial--that is, an opinion article? Or Ammoland.com--"The Leading Shooting Sports News Service for Guns and Ammunition!"?

What is my point here? While I agree with the premise of lobbies to protect American rights, they tend to be too extreme and selfishly support their viewpoints rather than the views of general America.

What is wrong with extremism? Extreme left-wing politics = Communists (Stalin); Extreme right-wing politics = Fascists (Hitler); Extreme heat = Death; Extreme cold = Death; Extreme work ethic = Stress, then death; Extreme party ethic = Fun, then claims of laziness and worthlessness, then overdosing and death.

Maybe these examples are a bit extreme. But I think it proves the need for balance. In the case of NRA, they turn the slightest claim about gun regulation into a threat on American privacy and our right to bear arms. Imagine if the NRA had its way. There would be absolutely no limits. Anyone could purchase any gun and amass a huge arsenal. People would fill their cabinets solely out of fear of others, not for the pleasure of hunting. We'd have a personal arms race. Do we really want that?

But the NRA also keeps the government from controlling every move we make. If the government could, they might have cameras in every corner of the country and arrest anyone who even makes a gun shape out of their hand.

In summary....um....I forgot. [Big smile and wait for applause] Any questions?

Jane Goodall and Religious Perspective

An interview with Jane Goodall was printed in the September 2010 issue of Reader's Digest magazine. Just in case you are not familiar with her name, Goodall pioneered primatology research by being accepted into groups of wild chimpanzees in Tanzania. Read the following excerpt. I found her viewpoint interesting, but I'm not sure I agree with everything she said.

RD: Where do you stand on the controversy between Darwinism--the theory that man is descended from the apes--and creationism--that God created man?
Goodall: How we got to be who we are and what we are today is of supreme unimportance compared with coming together to get out of the mess we have made of our world.

RD: Do you believe in God?
Goodall: I don't have any idea of who or what God is. But I do believe in some great spiritual power. I don't know exactly what to call it. I feel it particularly when I'm out in nature. It's just something that's bigger and stronger than what I am or what anybody is. I feel it. And it's enough for me.

RD: Who was the greatest influence in your life?
Goodall: My mother, who was a very wise woman. She would say, "You were born into this family, and your grandfather was a Christian, so you grew up as a Christian. But you might have been born somewhere in the Middle East, and then you would talk about Allah. Or you might have been born in a Jewish family...Or a Buddhist family..." My mother always put things in perspective. She said there could only be one God, and what we call him depends on where we were brought up.

Andy Rooney's Citizenship Test

In his "60 Minutes" segment tonight, Andy Rooney discussed the U.S. Citizenship test. First, he recalled a segment from 1996 about immigration and compared the exam then to the exam now. Here are some sample questions:

Old exam

• What are the colors of the American flag?


• Where is the White House?


• What are the 2 major political parties in the United States?

New exam

• The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.


• The House of Representatives has how many voting members?


• What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?

You need to answer 6 of 10 questions correctly. Could you pass?


Andy Rooney then laid out his own citizenship exam:

• Recite the Pledge of Allegiance.


• Promise to pay your taxes.


• Sing the Star-Spangled Banner.


• Name the winner of the last Super Bowl.

Could you pass his test? According to Rooney, "If you can't do all four, pack your bags and get out."

Instant Runoff Voting

Minneapolis introduced instant-runnoff voting (IRV) at the election last Tuesday. There are a variety of opinions on the voting system. One "concerned" constituent, David Dingee, wrote to the Star Tribune and had the following letter published:

After having my first experience with instant-runoff voting (IRV) in Minneapolis on Tuesday, I strongly suggest that suburban voters do not support this procedure.

I can't wait until 2010 when, due to the amount of time it will take to fill ballots out and all the added confusion it will cause, outrageous lines form at the polls.

It appears that all IRV does is give fringe parties an opportunity to get votes that they never would have under the traditional voting process. In Minneapolis, the first candidate for mayor listed was from the "Is Awesome Party." Clearly, IRV will encourage more odd parties and bizarre candidates.

Politics is scary enough; let's not make it worse.

I disagree with Mr. Dingee. IRV is meant to give more parties a voice. You don't have to fear voting for a fringe character because you can choose a more popular fellow with the second or third option.

If Mr. Dingee was truly a reader of the Star Tribune and not just a citizen seeking a place to vent, he may recall an article by Jon Tevlin on October 14, 2009, titled "22-year-old's mayoral bid rests totally on awesomeness."

Among the 11 people who want to be mayor of Minneapolis are three people who claim Democratic Farmer-Labor allegiances, one Socialist Worker's Party candidate, a Libertarian and a man from something called the Edgertonite Party, which believes in communism, that the region should secede from the United States and that Laura Ingalls Wilder is God.

Electoral politics in Minnesota have never been dull.

Then there is the fledgling candidacy of one Joey Lombard, a 22-year-old unemployed musician who lists his "political party or principle" as "Is Awesome."
-----
I mentioned that my colleague pointed out candidates were allowed three words for their political party name or principle, and that Lombard seemed to have missed the opportunity to belong to the "Is Totally Awesome" party.

"Arggggggggh, man!" said Lombard, sounding genuinely upset. "I didn't even think of that."
-----
Lombard has promised to keep his campaign expenses under $100. "It's all word-of-mouth," he said. When Lombard sent me an e-mail, he signed it, "Joey Lombard, practically the mayor."

I asked Lombard whether he would promise that if he got elected, he would not run for governor while in office.

"Absolutely," he said.

Politics can use some creativity. It has become a two party system, and the Republicans and Democrats want to draw a clear line between each other. But a political map of the United States shows primarily purple, centrist beliefs across all regions of the country.

I do have some hesitation about IRV. Consider the 2000 presidential election where Bush took 47.9% of the popular vote to Gore's 48.4%. (But Bush received more electoral votes. Remember Florida, Supreme Court, and "hanging chads"?) Neither candidate reached the required 50% plus one vote plateau. The lowest vote getter would be removed, and their second choices would be added to the pot. The process continues until someone reaches a majority vote. They say IRV allows a person to freely vote for a minor candidate without fear of casting a vote that doesn't count. Many say that Nader took away votes from Gore. However, Nader took 2.7% of the votes (3rd highest). Therefore, Nader ballots would be the last option to count.

Because it was a tight race between two candidates, those "other" candidates combined for just 1% of the total vote. Even if Gore took all of the additional votes prior to including the Nader ballots, he would have been short of 50%.

In IRV, eventually someone receives enough votes to be declared an outright winner. Wouldn't you rather have that than Jesse Ventura winning Minnesota's gubernatorial election in 1998 with just 36.99% of the votes?

To comment on Ventura's time in office would be another post for another day.

Shoe Provides Economic Advice

The comic "Shoe" explained a solution to our economic woes in the December 21, 2008, strip. Shoe and Cosmo are seated at the diner reading the newspaper when the following conversation takes place.

Cosmo: Where do I find good news in all this bad news?
Shoe: Read between the lines.

Cosmo: Folks are buying less gas, which has GOT to be bad news for the economy.
Shoe: No, it's not.
Cosmo: How do you figure?
Shoe: Buying less gas leads to reduced driving time...
Shoe: Which means fewer accidents on the highway...
Shoe: Which means additional time at home...
Shoe: Leading to more accidents in the bedroom...
Shoe: Which blossoms into a new baby boom...
Cosmo: Ah...which results in a robust economy!