Let ’em in?

Following my last post in which I outed myself as a supporter of legal immigration, I received two kinds of questions. First, I was asked if the numbers I cited included refugees seeking asylum. (Answer: they did not.) Second, I was asked what the “right” number of immigrants to let in is, because letting them all in could be a drain on our country’s resources. I’ll address my thoughts on these issues in this followup.

My previous post focused on the number of people on waiting lists to get a visa allowing entry into the US. Those numbers did not include what the Department of Homeland Security refers to as “refugees and asylees.” Here’s how DHS defines those categories:

A refugee is a person outside his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. An asylee is a person who meets the definition of refugee and is already present in the United States or is seeking admission at a port of entry.

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/refugees-asylees

According to DHS, for 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, 53,691 refugees (primarily from Congo, Iraq and Syria) and 26,568 asylum-seekers (primarily from China, El Salvador and Guatemala) were admitted to the US. How does this compare to the total number of refugees in the world in 2017? The UN estimated there were over 65 million. That number is now up to more than 70 million. So in 2017, our 80,000 refugees admitted amounted to about one-eighth of one percent of the number of refugees in the world. Meanwhile, the United States recently cut its annual admissions ceiling to 30,000, to roughly one-third of the yearly cap over the past decade.

To be fair, the US does admit more refugees per year than many countries, placing third of all countries in numbers of refugees admitted since 2000, after Turkey and Lebanon. Still, can’t we do more? What percentage of our population of 327.2 million can we safely admit? I don’t claim to know the answer to that, but 30,000 is less than one hundredth of one percent of the population of the US. In 2018, the US Department of State also issued 533,557 new immigrant visas. Adding these to the number of refugees admitted (whether 30,000 or 100,000) would still amount to less than 0.2% of the US population.

I was asked what percentage of the potential immigrants enter above the poverty line, and if letting them all in is fiscally responsible. I don’t really have an answer to that, other than referring to the numbers above. But I wonder if we should even be asking this question. Wait — no, I don’t wonder. I will just come out and say that I don’t think that we should.

Rather, I think we should be asking ourselves what the right thing to do is. And in more cases than not, I think the right thing to do is to let them in.

Migrants are gathered March 27 inside the fence of a makeshift detention center in El Paso. (Sergio Flores for The Washington Post) From https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/19/how-migrant-detention-became-american-policy/ [Accessed 18 Aug 2019]

Let’s look at a time when we didn’t do that. When, I claim, we made the wrong call. It was 1939. More than 900 refugees from Germany, mostly Jews, left on a ship headed for Cuba. That ship was the St. Louis. Just over two dozen of the passengers were allowed to enter Cuba, either because they had a US visa or were Spanish citizens. One who attempted suicide was allowed in to be hospitalized. The rest were refugees, hoping to be able to secure US visas. Even after pleas to FDR from the refugees and sympathy from the American public, the US responded by sending a Coast Guard vessel to ensure that the boat didn’t dock in Miami or to stop any refugees from attempting to swim the three miles to shore. (Nate DiMeo told this story really well in his podcast this week, inspiring me to include it here. You should have a listen.)

I think we should be asking ourselves what the right thing to do is. And in more cases than not, I think the right thing to do is to let them in.

The St. Louis was eventually turned back toward Europe. What happened to the 902 refugees who were on that ship? A few years ago, the US Holocaust Museum undertook a project to find out. Some, 278, were taken in by Great Britain. All but one of them survived the war. The rest were accepted into various countries on the continent, where some escaped the imminent German occupation, while others did not. Those who did not escape suffered the same fates as other Jews in western Europe, such as forced labor, concentration camps, and extermination. And 254 of these did not survive the war.

I mentioned in my last post how the US welcomed Albert Einstein, and how we now think of him as one of our own. What about these 900 other German immigrants? Why was Einstein part of the quota, while these 900 were not? Do we not feel any responsibility, knowing that we could have saved the lives of those 254 refugees? Do we really think that they would have been drains on our American society? Is that really the most important thing?

From 1905-1914, an average of 1 million immigrants — up to one full percent of the US population at the time — were admitted to the US each year through Ellis island. After a medical inspection, nearly all of them were admitted. Less than 2% of immigrants were rejected, which included those designated LPC – Likely (or Liable) to become a Public Charge.

Most immigrants – legal or “illegal” – that I am aware of, either personally, or from news stories, work hard. They aren’t on the public charge. They do work that many US citizens don’t want to do. They add to our economy and quality of life, rather than being a “public charge.”

If we currently allowed for immigration ratios similar to those from 100 years ago, admitting up to 1% of the US population, we would admit over 3 million immigrants per year. In order to do that, we would have to increase the number of visas issued each year by over 500%. Just to get back to what we did before. Year after year after year. To how America was built.

I’ll leave to folks with more experience and expertise than I to estimate how many more immigrants the US could absorb each year without substantial negative effects on our economy. But we’re not even having that conversation. Instead we talk about reducing the numbers. Maybe to zero. Or building a wall.

I’m not okay with that.

“I have no problem with immigrants. They just need to come legally!”

I am “coming out.” I drafted this post months ago, but didn’t post it. I guess I’m afraid that by coming out, I will alienate others, or be alienated by others. That I’ll offend you, my friends, associates, and fellow Americans. But I can’t pretend like everything is okay anymore. I need to say something. Do something. I’ll start small.

To the people who say Come here legally, I say Just how are they supposed to do that?

I believe in caring about people. I believe that the best way for a person to spend his life’s energy is in finding ways to help other people. I believe that all people have value, even those who make life choices that I don’t understand or who don’t happen to be American citizens.

And about that: My wife is an immigrant – a naturalized US citizen – and so is one of my daughters. This is not a secret. I’ve long been a proponent of international adoption, and I’ve even given lectures on the topic.

I sometimes hear people say that they are not anti immigration – they just want people to do it legally, or “get in line.” Here’s an example of how well that might work. This data is taken from the US State Department website, today, as in I just went there right now. Or, actually, it was a couple of months ago when I first drafted this post. Check out the data in the table and caption copied below:

So, according to the State Department, as of last November, there are 1.2 million people from Mexico alone on the waiting list for a “family-sponsored” or “employment-based” visa. The limit on visas issued this year to any particular country is 25,620. This means that, at this rate, the person at the end of the list would need to wait 48 years just to get a visa. That visa is basically just a work permit. Not a green card, not citizenship, not even a path to citizenship – just a visa. I’m over 50. This says to me that if I had been born in Mexico, I would likely die in Mexico waiting to get a visa.

It wasn’t always this way. “Ellis Island processed an average of 5,000 people per day.” “In 1907 alone, approximately 1.25 million immigrants were processed at Ellis Island in one year.” “Ellis Island remained open as an immigration center for 62 years, from 1892-1954.” (quotations from site referenced above)

So to the people who say Come here legally, I say Just how are they supposed to do that? I count myself lucky to have been born in the US and to not have to worry about this. Do you count yourself lucky? Or entitled?

If we want people to come here legally, then we actually have to provide a process that lets them in. The US doesn’t really do that. Theoretically, there are exceptions to let refugees from political persecution into the US, but Trump is proposing shutting this pathway down altogether. So when some US citizen talks about building walls, but doesn’t talk about increasing access to legal immigration, then that person is actually anti-immigration. And if that person is not a Native American, then that person is a hypocrite, because, like me, that person is a descendant of immigrants.

Immigrants are arguably what “Made America Great” in the first place. Albert Einstein is thought of as an American scientist – because the US welcomed him when Germany didn’t, and didn’t persecute him for being Jewish.

Albert Einstein’s US Certificate of Naturalization. From the collection of the Bernisches Historisches Museum in Bern, Switzerland.

International student enrollment in graduate science and engineering fields has been dropping for the last two years. Who can blame them for being wary or afraid of coming here? How many Einsteins will we miss, as they instead choose to study and work in countries more favorable to their situation?

But who am I kidding? I’m not going to convince any of the “build the wall” folks. I understand that isn’t how it works. However, I want you to know that I am not with you. I and my American family are not with you. I and my family of native-born, adopted, and naturalized Americans are not with you.

I try to keep politics out of the things I post on social media, and in public settings. But as Einstein famously said, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

So I have now I have outed myself. If you want to unfollow or unfriend me, I understand. If I see your post about building the wall, I hope you’ll understand if I do the same. Maybe we can still be friends, or at least we can still be friendly. But I just can’t see that kind of thing in my feed anymore. I just don’t need that in my life. Do you?

I have a dream, too.

If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective. – Martin Luther King, Jr., Christmas Eve Sermon, 1967 (Photo taken at MLK Memorial, credit M. Garoutte, copyright 2017)

In this Christmas sermon, who are “we?” Was Dr. King speaking only to those at his church? Only about religion? Perhaps, but I doubt it. What does ecumenical mean?

ecumenical (adjective) Representing a number of different Christian churches.
synonyms: nondenominational, universal, catholic, all-embracing, all-inclusive
antonym: denominational

Dr. King didn’t even mention religion when declaring what characteristics our loyalties must transcend. He expanded the definition of ecumenical to include race, class, and tribe. Now, 50 years later, will you allow me to expand, the definition even further – to political party? Ideology?

My social media feeds are becoming more and more polarized. I’m sure yours are, too. I can imagine you thinking, “We need to do something about this political situation! We can’t just sit idly by and allow this (whatever this is) to stand without saying something.” I get it. I feel that way too.

But if you must, I ask that you try to work toward an ecumenical perspective. And recognize that those who read what you write also are struggling with getting there. They’re going to have confirmation bias. We all have this, and have to work hard to overcome it.

But note that, even if you try, not everyone will. This is one reason I typically avoid making political posts on social media. Rather than take all the time and energy to make a thoughtful post that seeks to confront my own confirmation bias, it is most times easier for me, and perhaps wiser, just to remain silent.

Here’s a recap (greatly edited and abridged) of thread that was on my feed just today. I’m sure I could find one on any given day. And so could you. I’m glad my friends from high school have the opportunity to have a conversation. I’m glad that we have social media to stay connected. I haven’t chimed in. But just reading the thread makes me weary.

Friends, before you read further please know that I love you guys. All of you. You each have an opinion, based on your values and faith and ideology. So do I. I want us to stay friends. I’m leaving out names of both the authors and the politicians they are talking about.

J: [original post] Yet another embarrassing low from our elected official.
R: What gets me is I have heard/nor seen a video or sound bite. Is it somewhere to document it?
J: Haven’t we reached the point where silence is complicity?
R: If silence IS complicity… does that always mean that running your mouth is innocence?
D: “Running your mouth” is so incredibly negative and judgmental. J is absolutely right: silence is complicity.
L: Call me crazy but congressmen misusing tax money to use as hush money for their extra curriculars bothers me more… the hypocrisy among politicians is quite entertaining.
J: I don’t disagree about hush money, but that’s not the point here either. Changing the subject seems to be the last refuge for remaining political apologists.
T: Present the J’s of the world with this evidence, though, and you get silence. Silence is complicity.
R: Agreed, T!
T: We’ll take the one-political-party-supporting sycophants seriously when they stop their blind partisanship, ignoring far worse occurrences in their own party.
J: The J’s of the world T Sycophants? I’ve told you this before but you are smart enough to make your point without resorting to ad hominem attacks and nastyness.
L: The media plays as much a part in how the world sees them in what they present to us. This doesn’t imply that I am for censuring the media, but it’s no secret that they selectively and sometimes errantly broadcast information to make people look bad.
R: Can someone enlighten me as how calling those countries a “you know what” is racist? Anyone???
J: What else would you call someone who has spent a lifetime saying awful things about black and brown people?
L: None of us were in the meeting and none of us know anything!! This is all speculation!!!

<Big Sigh> Have we changed any minds here? Or have we done more to raise each other’s ire and damage our relationships than convincing anyone of our position? Who here is seeking to overcome their own confirmation bias? (I’m not saying I am, either.)

If we see the news as fake, it isn’t going to be convincing. What happens when we see our own friends as sources of fake news? Are they still our friends? Do we just lump them in with the “enemy?” Why are those who disagree with us our enemy?

You know what? I don’t think I’m doing any better with this post. Let me change gears.

My family went to Washington, DC, last spring break. It’s one of the places I wanted to take my kids before they were too old for family vacations. I had been there a couple of times before. I wanted to show them the Air and Space museum (they weren’t impressed). My older daughter wanted to see the holocaust museum, and my younger daughter wanted to see the pandas at the zoo. We did those things. I wanted to show them the history of our country. The National Archives, with the founding documents. And the mall with all its memorials. Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington. Vietnam, Korea, WWII. All these were and are meaningful and memorable.

The MLK memorial was new since I had been there. I wasn’t expecting much. I was wrong. It turned out to be the favorite thing I saw in DC. It was powerful. So many moving, thoughtful quotes from just one man, the face of civil rights in the USA. We now honor him with a holiday, and many schools are canceled in celebration. My university now sponsors a day of service every year on MLK Day. Go look up all his quotes from the memorial (here they are if you’re interested). I challenge you not to be inspired.

But where have we come in 50 years? We have made some progress combating racism and defending civil rights for all. We have made some progress in judging people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character. Some.

But what parts or Dr. King’s dream have we not even begun to think about, much less reach for? Are we striving for our loyalties to transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation? Are we struggling to bridge the gaps of “politicality” and ideology?

I know it’s a cop-out, but I don’t have the solutions. I only try to think before I post whether it will be helpful or not. If not, I try to avoid posting. I ask that you think before you post as well. And if you click send, that’s okay, too. We’re still friends. Aren’t we? I hope so.

If you have suggestions, I’m open. Let’s start the discussion. I may just listen for a while.

The Prayer

Last night was Christmas Eve. Our family always attends the evening candlelight service at our church. And this service is typically the most attended of any all year long. It concludes with everyone lighting a handheld candle, turning the lights down, and singing Silent Night. It is a time for us all to focus on the reason that we celebrate Christmas–that unto us a child was born, and He was called Immanuel, “God with us.”

There is always “special music” on Christmas Eve. “Special music” in my church means something other than the standard congregational singing with organ or piano accompaniment. Members who have talent playing an instrument or singing prepare pieces to contribute to the worship service. This year, my daughter was asked to play the flute along with a couple of verses of “Silent Night,” and I was asked to sing the male part in a duet of “The Prayer,” originally recorded by Andrea Bocelli and Celine Dion, with a more well-known version in which Josh Groban replaced Andrea Bocelli.

This song has made it into the rotation of Christmas music on radio stations and streaming services. But I thought its message didn’t seem all that “Christmasy.” It doesn’t seem to be about the nativity, or winter, or snowmen, or Santa Claus. It is about faith, but the line “give us faith so we’ll be safe” just seemed odd for Christmas. And, faith doesn’t keep us safe, or at least not in the way we normally think of safety. Faith doesn’t keep us safe from the weather, or from harm by evildoers or accidents. I got to thinking that perhaps the translation just isn’t that good. Perhaps “safe” is better translated “saved,” having to do with eternal salvation rather than worldly safety. So, using alltheyrics.com, Google translate, my two years of college French, and my lifetime of Christian education to help, I looked at the Italian words and the supposed English translation, and I found what I thought I would. If this is a song considered appropriate for the season, in the church calendar rather than the shopping calendar, the translation could be better. Here’s what I came up with in an hour or two, by comparing both the duet version and the original solo version in Italian, which has a different feel altogether. Below, I have kind of mashed the versions together.

Verse 1 (English/duet)

I pray you’ll be our eyes, and watch us where we go,
And help us to be wise, in times when we don’t know
Let this be our prayer, as we go our way
Lead us to a place, guide us with your grace
To a place where we’ll be safe.

Verse 1 (Italian-Bocelli)

Italian (Male voice)	Translation (proposed)
O dio che tutto sai,	O God, you know all things.
Ricordati di voi insegnaci la via che a te ci condurrà	Remember us, and show us the way which will lead us to you.
Se ti giungerà, questa mia preghiera, Tu l’ascolterai	If this prayer of mine comes to you, hear it
E ei salverai, I tuoi figli siamo noi	and save us, your children.

 

Italian (Male voice)	Translation (allthelyrics)	Translation (proposed)
La luce che tu dai	The light that you give	The light that you give
Nel cuore resterà	In the heart will remain	will remain in our hearts
A ricordarci che	To remind us that	to remind us that
L’eterna stella sei	You are the eternal star	you are the eternal star.
Nella mia preghiera	In my prayer	In my prayer,
Quanta fede c’è	How much faith there is	How much faith there is!

English (Female voice)

I pray we’ll find your light
And hold it in our hearts
When stars go out each night

Let this be our prayer
When shadows fill our day

Lead us to a place
Guide us with your grace
Give us faith so we’ll be safe

Italian (Both voices)	Translation (allthelyrics)	Translation (proposed)
Sognamo un mondo senza più violenza	We dream of a world with no more violence	We dream of a world without violence.
Un mondo di giustizia e di speranza	A world of justice and of hope	A world of justice and of hope, with
Ognuno dia la mano al suo vicino	Everyone gives his hand to his neighbor	everyone offering his hand to his neighbor
Simbolo di pace e di fraternità	A symbol of peace and brotherhood	as a symbol of peace and brotherhood.

 

Italian (Solo version)	Translation (proposed)
Sognamo un mondo senza più violenza	We dream of a world without violence.
Un mondo di giustizia e di speranza	A world of justice and of hope,
Ognu’la via da mondo eternitera	bringing the world, for eternity,
Sin dolore E pace di fraternità	no pain, but instead, peace and brotherhood.

 

Italian (Male voice)	Translation (allthelyrics)	Translation (proposed)
La forza che ci dai	The strength that you give us	You give us strength
E’ il desiderio che	Is the desire that	to hope that
Ognuno trovi amor	everyone find love	we can all find love
Intorno e dentro a sé	Around and inside of himself	around us and within us.

We ask that life be kind
And watch us from above
We hope each soul will find
Another soul to love

Let this be our prayer
Just like every child
Need[s] to find a place, guide us with your grace
Give us faith so we’ll be safe

Italian (Both voices)	Translation (allthelyrics)	Translation (proposed)
E’ la fede che hai acceso in noi	And the faith you have ignited in us	And the faith that you have ignited in us
Sento che ci salverà	I feel will save us	will surely save us.

So, in short, the prayer seems to be for faith and eternal salvation, rather than temporal “safety.” I like it much better this way, and it surely seems more appropriate to sing in church. The focus on peace and brotherhood seems to fit in with other holiday sentiments, both secular and religious, and it isn’t too much of a stretch to suggest that the birth of a King and a Savior might be the Light that He gives to ignite a flame of faith in us.

I would be grateful if any native Italian speakers and/or anyone more familiar with the various versions of this song than I would care to correct my translations or comment in any other constructive way.

Merry Christmas!

References:
https://www.letras.mus.br/andrea-bocelli/279032/
http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/josh_groban/the_prayer-lyrics-9336.html

Oh Roundabout, what is wrong with thee? Let me count the ways. (Roundabout Joplin #4)

You know, I never intended this blog to be a watchdog, activist, whine fest. After I finish this series, I need to find something positive to write about. Anyway…

In my last post, I detailed that accidents at Stones Corner have more than doubled since the installation of a multi-lane roundabout at the intersection to replace a traditional traffic signal. To be fair, the intersection has been a problem for many years. I know. I grew up around here and have lived in my current location since 1998. I’ve seen the intersection redesigned multiple times, and never have the engineers asked those who live in the area what needs to be fixed before designing their improvements. Solving one issue has created another each time.

What was the issue this time? Not accidents, presumably, as the rate and severity before the roundabout redesign seemed to be low. Traffic slowdowns seemed to be the major concern. I personally noted traffic backing up to the east during rush hour all the way to the airport many times. Often, I noted this while braking hard to avoid a collision, since the grade at that point doesn’t easily allow one to see that the traffic is at a standstill, and one wouldn’t expect this nearly half a mile from the traffic signal. I’m guessing that this problem is much alleviated (although adding a dedicated right-turn lane for those wishing to go north on 43 would have helped greatly, at much lass cost).

But folks have not become “used to” the roundabout. Or not enough of the folks have. Accidents have more than doubled. Ask anyone (seriously, anyone) who lives nearby to tell you some crazy stories. I believe the failure of this intersection to return to low accident rates has multiple causes. Some is due to poor design, some to poor signage, some to poor implementation, and some to unfamiliarity on the part of drivers (for which the state of Missouri also shares some of the blame). I will expand on each of these.

I. Unfamiliarity

Let’s start with the unfamiliarity. Roundabouts just aren’t common in the States. Folks didn’t grow up learning how to navigate them. They weren’t covered on my driver’s test (way back in the 1980’s). But one might assume that the Department of Revenue (which publishes the Driver Guide given to folks planning to get a Missouri drivers’ license) now has information about roundabouts. One would be correct, if one were interested only in single-lane roundabouts.

I was able to find and download four Missouri Driver Guides published from 2011 through 2014. As late as August 2014, the image below represented the entirety of the published information about how to drive a roundabout.

The current November 2015 Driver Guide is a little better. However, more than two years after installation of two multi-lane roundabouts in the Joplin area, the Driver Guide has no help for you if you wish to learn how to navigate them. Here is an excerpt showing the entirety of the information it contains about roundabouts (click to enlarge):

See anything about multi-lane roundabouts? Me neither. But at least the current Driver Guide is an improvement over the four earlier versions.

The Washington State Department of Transportation does a much better job of educating drivers in this regard. On their page How to Drive a Roundabout (which Google helped me find), one can find the following information:

Driving multi-lane roundabouts

In a multi-lane roundabout, you will see two signs as you approach the intersection: The yellow “roundabout ahead” sign and a black-and-white “lane choice” sign. You will need to choose a lane prior to entering the roundabout.

You choose your lane in a multi-lane roundabout the same way you would in a traditional multi-lane intersection. To go straight or right, get in the right lane. To go straight or left, get in the left lane. Drivers can also make U-turns from the left lane.

The graphics below show what turns can be made in multi-lane roundabouts. The arrows in yellow show the movements that can be made from the right lane, and the arrows in green show the movements that can be made from the left lane.

WsDOT even has a video that explains how to drive a roundabout. Unfortunately, Missouri does not seem to have adopted uniform lane choice signs such as the ones shown above and in the video.

II. Poor planning

The information from the Washington DOT about choosing a lane before entering is very good. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work at the Stones Corner roundabout, because only three of the four approaches have two lanes. Two of these two-lane approaches split into three as they approach the roundabout. The fourth approach has only one lane (which splits into two). And the lanes that are allowed to exit at various points depend on which direction one enters the roundabout from.

So here’s an open question: if you were designing an intersection style, at a major crossing of two state highways that had had numerous traffic control issues for decades—an intersection style that had not been used in your state in its entire history until a year or so previously—one which you knew the public was going to have difficulty adjusting to—one that people in the area had voiced their skepticism about—one that you were probably planning to use as a model for use elsewhere in the state {et cetera, et cetera}—wouldn’t you try to design it in as standard a way—as simple a way—as straightforward a way as possible? I believe you would. I certainly would. It would seem to be a no-brainer. But MoDOT chose to make a unique interchange. [Indeed, two unique interchanges—as the other roundabout on the same highway less than five miles east has a different nonstandard configuration.]

So, gentle driver, just ignore all those clear, thorough instructions from Washington DOT. They won’t help you here. Take a look at the aerial image below, and I’ll explain which lanes are allowed to go where.

If you enter from either the north or the east, the right lane goes straight or right, and the left lane goes straight, left, or makes a U-turn. This is what is expected (according to WsDOT). (However, if you make a U-turn when coming from the north, you must change from the inside to the outside lane on the east side of the roundabout. This is confusing, and goes against the general rule to stay in your lane in the roundabout.)

If you enter from the west, there is a dedicated right-turn-only lane. The center lane goes straight only. The left lane goes straight, left, or makes a U-turn.

Here’s where it gets crazy. If you enter from the south, there is a dedicated right-turn-only lane. The left lane goes only left, or makes a U-turn. You cannot go straight from the left lane. And unlike every other case, the center lane goes straight, left, or makes a U-turn. The main situation in which this is a problem is when a vehicle in the left lane attempts to go straight (as is allowed in all the other three directions) and crosses the path of a vehicle in the right lane attempting to turn left.

The other, not-so-obvious problem with this setup is that drivers learn that they can turn left from the right lane. Then they transfer this knowledge to a situation in which they enter from another direction. So, for example, a driver enters from the east in the right lane and proceeds to go past two exits to make a left turn—crossing the path of the driver in the left lane who intends to go straight (as I regularly witness).

My point here is that at this intersection there is no simple rule about which lanes are allowed to go where that applies from each direction. The roundabout could easily have been designed so that this would have been the case. I claim that this would have been the wise course of action, given the unfamiliarity of American drivers with navigating roundabouts in general.

You might claim that drivers can just follow the signs, or the lane markings on the roads. In fact, the road markings are little help, because they go by too fast to comprehend. And as for the signs, I will show that they actually do more harm than good. But since this post is getting awfully long, I think items III through V will have to wait for a fifth post.

You can get a preview of post #5 in the gallery comments below.

Entering from the north. Seems clear enough—right turn lane and the left lane goes straight (north) or left (west).

Now that we’re passing the lane markers (heading north), let’s look up at the signs.

Wait—the left lane splits in two! The leftmost lane goes, um, north, and the center lane goes either north, or… north? Oops, I’m past the signs.

Here we enter from the west. The right turn lane seems clear; south to Joplin. The center lane goes south to Webb City. OK… but wait! The left lane goes north or south to Bronaugh and Webb City. Wait; what?! Too late.

If we examine the signs up close, do they make more sense?

Here we are facing south, just west of the roundabout, between SMB Bank and Woody’s. Can we turn left here? There’s a left turn lane.

But what’s with the “Road Closed” signs? Is that a 6″ curb there if I try to turn left? By golly, I think it is! Good thing it’s not dark out.

Coming from the north there is only one lane…

…that splits into two. The left lane goes south to Joplin or Webb City. The right goes south or north to Joplin or Carl Junction. Hmmm… What if I want to go to Sonic? Or Kum and Go?

Guess I’ll try the left lane.

Here we are entering from the east. For the record, the signs indicate that from the left lane, you can exit south on 43 or west on north171. From the right lane, you can exit north on 43 or west on north 171. Did you get all that? Well, it’s not actually all on the signs, but it’s true. Having the signs actually makes this intersection *more* confusing.

Once we pass the signs, things make more sense, right? However, how many times have I seen a car in the right lane pass both legal exits to go south on 43?

See the Missouri Highway Patrol car at Kum and Go? The officer stopped me as I was walking by with my camera. Ironically, he had been working an accident at the roundabout. “So, you hate it, too?” he said?

For the record, this was taken on Nov 25, 2015, and the dangerous nonexistent left turn lane is still marked. When the Neighborhood Market opens, I predict many accidents here unless this gets fixed pronto.

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Roundabout? (Roundabout Joplin #3)

Well, it’s finally time for me to write the third post in the series about roundabouts around Joplin. In the first, I wrote about the one in the area that seems to be working well. In the second, I wrote about one in Webb City that was poorly designed and still more poorly “corrected.” Now, I finally get to the granddaddy of all the area roundabouts–the one at the Stone’s Corner intersection (Missouri Highways 43 and 171). Here’s a Google Maps photo.Looks cool, eh? So, what’s the problem?

This morning, on the way home from Sunday brunch with the family, I watched someone navigate the roundabout incorrectly. This driver entered the roundabout from the east in the rightmost lane. This lane is marked as a straight-ahead-or-right-turn lane. However, the driver proceeded right on past the allowed exits (north and west) and continued on to exit the roundabout to the south—crossing right in front of me as I exited the roundabout to the west.

I estimate I see a dangerous, illegal move such as the one I described above about once in every  five to ten times I traverse the intersection. I’ve seen them stop, look, and then turn left to go clockwise in the wrong direction. I’ve seen them come to a stop in the left lane and then cross two lanes of traffic to turn right. I regularly see drivers switch lanes as they go around, cutting off someone else’s path. Sometimes they switch lanes twice. People simply don’t know what to do. Some of this is based on inexperience with roundabouts in general, and multi-lane roundabouts specifically. But some of the problem is, I believe, with the design and the signage.

A publication of the US Department of Transportation touts the percent decrease in accident frequencies at intersections converted to roundabouts (see image at right). The chosen data seems to show more than a 50% decrease in injury accidents and a nearly 30% decrease in property damage only (“PDO”) accidents. In the text of the document, there is this qualifying statement:

The frequency of crashes might not always be lower at roundabouts, but the injury rates are reduced. [emphasis added]

Let’s take a look at the data from the Stones Corner interchange. I compiled this data using the Missouri State Highway Patrol Traffic Crashes Online Mapping tool.

As you can see, the average number of accidents has more than doubled since the roundabout opened in July, 2014. I did my best to estimate which accidents were actually “at” or “in” the intersection, and which were “nearby.” I zoomed the maps to the same scale, so the “total” numbers are comparable. You can check my numbers by pulling up the data yourself, and I included a couple of screenshots of the maps below for reference.

The 40 accidents in 2014 imply an extra 20+ accidents over the pre-roundabout average in the second half of 2014 alone. In September 2014, Dan Salisbury, MoDOT Assistant District Engineer said, “We expected early on that people would go through a learning curve in learning how to drive it, and that’s what we’re in right now and we really encourage people to really pay attention as you go through there.” Indeed, many accidents did reportedly occur in the first few weeks after the roundabout opened.

But 2015 has not brought a return to pre-roundabout numbers. From January 1 to November 18, 2015 (when I did the search), the MSHP site reported 39 accidents in or near the roundabout. Here’s an image showing the locations of the accident reports in 2013 as compared with 2015 (click to enlarge).You might have noticed that in the table above, I did not report the number of injury accidents. These are represented by blue dots on the maps. You will note two blue dots in 2013 and three in 2015. These numbers are too small to tell if there is any significance to the change in intersection design on the number of injury accidents, and there are no fatalities indicated (red dots) in any of the years I examined. So, why have the number of accidents not declined at this intersection as they have in other cases? I have some ideas, which I will detail in my next blog post.

MGE refuses to refund overpayments; cites Misouri Public Service Commission rules

In my previous post, I outlined how the denial of my rebate claim for installing a new high-efficiency furnace led me to discover that I had been paying nonresidential rates to Missouri Gas Energy since 1998, amounting to nearly $2500 in overpayments over that time.

A few days after the events described previously, I telephoned the customer service department at MGE and requested that my bills be adjusted retroactively. I was told that they would send an email note to the billing department to make an adjustment.

I phoned customer service back a week or so later, on June 18, to ask about the status. I was told that there was a note on my account and that the billing department would review it. I asked to speak to someone in the billing department. I was told that the representative I was speaking with did not have a number to call billing, but that she would send them an email to review my account. I replied that this was not acceptable, since it was the same thing I had been told a week earlier, and I asked to speak to a supervisor. I was connected with a gentleman by the name of “Duke,” who, to his credit, was very proactive in communicating with me by phone later that day and the next (even though I was not entirely satisfied with the results, as will become clear). He gave me his direct phone number, though I didn’t have to call it because he called me first.

Duke’s first position when I spoke to him on June 18 was that billing could likely do adjustments for only three years. He vaguely explained that the Missouri Public Service Commission only allows adjustments for three years. I questioned this, and reminded him that I have been overpaying for more than 17 years, and he said he would get back to me. Duke phoned me back the same day and said that the PSC allows three years “standard” and five years “maximum,” and that he would follow up when he had something firmed up.

Duke phoned back on June 19 and confirmed that MGE would adjust my bills for the five-year maximum. He gave me a dollar amount which I did not write down but was around $1000. I asked him once again to explain why they could not adjust my bills for the remaining 12.5 years, and he said that they are bound by “our tariffs allowed by the Public Service Commission.” This sounds like a cop-out to me. Cop-out is a slang word, but is defined by Webster as

: an excuse for not doing something
: something that avoids dealing with 
  a problem in an appropriate way

By my calculations, this means that MGE has simply used their misleading invoices and the PSC regulations to defraud me of about $1500 from 1998 to 2010.

[Indeed, my June statement (click thumbnail to enlarge) shows a credit of $1006.11, though there is no indication that MGE will be cutting me a check anytime soon.]

So, I looked into the regulations, again prompted by the same wise and intelligent friend who is quick with searching Google and knows the right way to search to find relevant info. To wit: the Missouri Secretary of State publishes the “Rules of Department of Economic Development, Division 240—Public Service Commission.” Here’s an excerpt that seems to be in my favor:

4 CSR 240-13.045 Disputes (pp. 8-9)

(8) If the dispute is ultimately resolved in favor of the customer in whole or in part, any excess moneys paid by the customer shall be refunded promptly.

(9) If the utility does not resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the customer, the utility representative shall notify the customer that each party has a right to make an informal complaint to the commission, and of the address and telephone number where the customer may file an informal complaint with the commission. If a customer files an informal complaint with the commission prior to advising the company that all or a portion of a bill is in dispute, the commission shall notify the customer of the payment required by sections (5) or (6) of this rule.

In my conversation with Duke, I cannot say that I formally stated that I was disputing charges, though that was quite obviously the entire purpose of my communication with MGE. I was not informed of my right to make a complaint to the PSC. (I have filed a complaint online with the Office of the Missouri Attorney General, but have as yet heard nothing from them.) Also, all the language regarding disputing charges, both in the PSC regulations and in the MGE General Terms and Conditions for Gas Service seems to be intended for charges that are as yet unpaid, referring to paying the amount not in dispute to avoid discontinuation of service. This is not my situation, as I have already paid the disputed charges and am requesting a refund.

All is not rosy for me, however. Regulation 4 CSR 240-13.025 Billing Adjustments (p. 5) states the following:

(1)(A) In the event of an overcharge, an adjustment shall be made for the entire period that the overcharge can be shown to have existed not to exceed sixty (60) consecutive monthly billing periods, or twenty (20) consecutive quarterly billing periods, calculated from the date of discovery, inquiry, or actual notification of the utility, whichever comes first;

So, there we have it, the statute on which MGE stands. I should note that I find nothing referring to a “three-year standard adjustment period with a five-year maximum” as I was told by Duke at MGE. The MGE seems to be claiming that their incorrect billing comprises a simple one-time overcharge, much as if the meter was calibrated incorrectly and was not “within the limits prescribed by commission rules” (subsection (1)(F) from the same page).

However, this was not a simple overcharge. This was, in fact, two hundred and ten separate and distinct overcharges—one per month for seventeen and a half years—due to MGE surreptitiously misclassifying my account as nonresidential. Again, I’m claiming that the overcharge was specifically and fraudulently hidden from notice because there is no way to tell from the invoice/statement what level of service (rate schedule) is being used to determine the billed amount. I’m stopping short of saying it was intentionally hidden. However, MGE should be more intentional about making clear exactly what the charges on their statements are for.

In short, I admit that “the entire period that the overcharge can be shown to have existed” has certainly exceeded “sixty (60) consecutive monthly billing periods…calculated from the date of discovery, inquiry, or actual notification of the utility, whichever comes first.”

But should not the utility be required to disclose on the regular, monthly statement, exactly what rate class the customer is being charged for?  It is as if the utility knows that if it can get away with overcharging for longer than 5 years, all those prior overpayments can become pure profit.

MGE will probably also fall back on this statement from their General Terms and Conditions:

CHOICE BY CUSTOMER (click image to enlarge)

So, this seems to indicate that as a customer, it was my choice of which rate schedule to take. Okay, be honest: how many of you reading this were presented a choice of taking a nonresidential account when obtaining gas service for your primary residence? I certainly was not presented an option. I don’t recall the exact situation, but perhaps the service was in the name of my general contractor when they were building the house and then transferred to my name when we closed the sale on the house?

How many of you have moved into a new rental or pre-existing home and had utility service transferred to your name? How many times did you specify to the representative, “Now remember, I’m requesting a residential account, not a commercial one?” I’m guessing that like me, that thought never even crossed your mind. You, like me, assumed that the account you were establishing for your home was a residential account.

So, will MGE try to claim that I chose a commercial account when I established service, and then afterwards, since I had chosen, it was acceptable for them to hide that choice from me for seventeen years by sending statements that in no way show the class of service I was paying for?

That seems to be pretty thin ice on which to stand.

Missouri Gas Energy defrauds homeowner of thousands of dollars

The customer referred to in the title is me. Due to an error by MGE, I have been overpaying them since 1998. Here’s the story.

This May, we installed new heating and air in our 17½-year-old home. I can give a positive review for Lyerla Sheet Metal, who installed a “4 ton Trane XR14 condensing unit and 100,000 BTU Trane 96. 7% gas furnace and Trane programmable thermostat” (quote from the invoice). Installing a furnace more than 96% efficient qualified us for a $300 rebate from MGE. Lyerla helped us complete the forms and I submitted them to the proper address (in Massachusetts).

We received a response dated June 5, denying our claim for a rebate because, “Incentives are only available to Missouri Gas Energy residential gas customers.” See the image below for excerpts of the rebate requirements on the submission form and the text of the denial.

The letter included a customer service telephone number, which I called. I explained that the service address was my home, in which I have lived since we built it in 1998. The representative I spoke with confirmed that my account was a nonresidential account. She was unable to change that, but she connected me with the Missouri Gas Energy billing department.

The MGE billing representative looked up my account and also confirmed that it was listed as nonresidential. After a few exchanges, I was able to convince her that this address was indeed the one for my home, and I asked if I had been overcharged on every bill for over 17 years. She replied that the account had been listed as nonresidential since it was opened (in other words, “yes”).

After waiting a week or so for the records to be updated, I called the customer service number (presumably in Massachusetts) again. My rebate request is being resubmitted, but I was advised that it would take 4-6 weeks to be processed, and I have not received word on the status at the time of this writing.

Meanwhile, I began to investigate how much I had been overcharged and to attempt to obtain a refund of my overpayments for nearly two decades. I looked at a recent gas bill to see where it says that it is for a nonresidential account. Here’s a photo of the statement, with my identifiable information redacted. Click to view at full size, and see if you can find anywhere that it states this is a nonresidential account. I can’t.

A friend found a link to the current residential rates, which have a fixed monthly charge of $23 plus delivery fees, taxes, and $0.0738 per Ccf of gas used. As you can see in my statement, my fixed monthly charge is $34. This correlates to the the rates I found for “Small General Gas Service” (SGGS) on the MGE website. So apparently, the only way to tell that mine is not a residential account is to look up the rates online and compare them with your statement. I wonder how many other folks are being similarly overcharged.

Let’s do some math. In order to do this, I need to delve a bit further into the rates. Prior to October 1, 2004, the base monthly rate for residential service was $27.87 and for Small General Gas Service it was $40.74. So the difference now is $11 per month, but prior to last October it was $12.87.Let’s go with the $12.87/month as a base overpayment, since it has only been half a year since October.

To be fair, the charge per Ccf (hundred cubic feet) of gas I paid is actually less. The stated residential rates are 7.38 cents per Ccf. The rate statement linked above for SGGS is 5.43 cents per Ccf, but my statement (see above) says I paid 5.3209 cents per Ccf. From the “Billed CCF Usage Per Month” graph on my statement, I estimate use of about 725 Ccf per year, or an average of about 60 Ccf/month. Using the published rate schedule, this equates to paying about $1.17 per month less for the actual gas used

60 ccf × ($0.0738/ccf − $0.0543/ccf)= $1.17

So, subtracting the $1.17 from the $12.87 leaves a monthly overpayment of $11.70 per month. We moved into the home in December 1998, 17½ years ago, or 210 months. Now I’m ready to calculate the overpayment.

210 months × $11.70/month = $2457.00

So, I estimate that I have overpaid MGE nearly $2500 during the time I have owned my home. Now imagine that MGE is doing the same thing to, say, 1000 customers. Take my $2500 times 1000 and you get 2.5 million dollars fraudulently billed and collected.

Of course, I have no evidence that there are 1000 other customers whose accounts are erroneously classified as nonresidential. But—and here’s my point—there is no way to tell. Shouldn’t homeowners’ statements from MGE clearly indicate the type of service that is being billed? I think not listing it is deceptive, and this practice needs to be changed.

In the second part of this post, I will discuss what steps I have taken to try to get MGE to refund my overpayments and what results I have achieved so far. [Spoiler alert: MGE will only refund a portion of the overpayments.]

Thank you, James Horner.

I’m going to take a break from the roundabout posts (still 2-3 more to come) for something a little different.

Last week, prolific film score composer James Horner died when the personal plane he was piloting crashed. His death seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the media. I recommend listening to the track below, with headphones if possible, while reading the rest of this post.

James Horner has composed scores for more than 100 films, but is perhaps best known for his score for the movie Titanic, which earned him the academy award for best score in 1998. A quick Google search on his name brings up this first page of cover art images from films you’ll recognize.

But as you’ve guessed, I’ll remember him primarily for the score from one of my favorite films, Apollo 13, which opened in theaters 20 years ago today, and which director Ron Howard worked diligently to keep true to the real events.

I can’t disassociate the music from the movie, which is one of my all-time favorites. Just hearing the music brings my emotions to the surface, even if I’m not specifically remembering the scene that it accompanies. In the track on this page, four minutes of suspense brings you to the build beginning at about 4:10, and by 4:25, I’m fighting back tears every time. It is truly amazing and beautiful. And if you hadn’t guessed, this climax occurs during the scene when the command module, which was feared to have burned up in the atmosphere, re-establishes contact with ground control and it becomes clear that the astronauts have survived

I also associate the Apollo 13 score with Paul Wylie’s equally emotional figure skating program from the year after he won the silver medal at the Albertville Olympics. Sadly, the only video I can find of this program online is low quality (both video and audio), but it is still worth watching. Here it is:

For all these reasons, Apollo 13 is not only my favorite James Horner score, but my favorite film score of all time. If you haven’t gotten into listening to film scores, this is a good place to start. However, it wasn’t easy to do before YouTube, since this score was never released by the movie studio. Oh, there is an Apollo 13 soundtrack, which “[c]ontains rock songs and some of Horner’s original score, with dialogue excerpts heard over the music,” and which may have been the source for Paul Wylie’s program. There was a “promo CD” with the entire Horner score released presumably to folks in the Academy to listen to, since the score was nominated for the Best Original Dramatic Score in 1995. This music has made its way onto YouTube, and the studio has apparently not required it to be removed. Perhaps Horner’s passing will motivate Universal (or whoever has the rights) to release the score for music aficionados.

In the meantime, you can check out, as I will, the James Horner Community on YouTube, which, I have discovered today, contains dozens—no, scores—of Horner soundtracks. Pun intended.

Thank you, James Horner.

Roundabout Joplin #2: We’re the Webb City Lab Rats!

One of my initial intentions in this post was to chide MoDOT for foisting the Webb City roundabout on its citizens without giving the idea sufficient forethought or engineering planning to ensure that best practices were followed. Consider the image below from the MSHP Traffic Crashes Online Mapping page showing auto accidents in 2014.

The satellite image isn’t new enough to show the roundabout, but see if you can guess where it is. The site shows seven accidents reported in 2014 (the blue dot at the top is partially covering another green dot).

E. MacArthur Drive (misspelled in the image) is Missouri Highway 171, and so the construction does fall under the authority of MoDOT. However, as I was researching this story, I discovered that MoDOT did not finance the project, nor did it apparently directly oversee the engineering. I didn’t know that this $2.6 million dollar project was planned and financed by the city of Webb City via a “Transportation Development District (TDD).” Click the link below to see the council packet (agenda and minutes) for the meeting that authorized the creation of the district.

From p. 4: Webb City Council Meeting – Special Session – May 2, 2011

East Road Project, Centennial Project and Roundabout. Councilman Fisher moved to approve all three projects in the amount of 2.6 million dollars. Councilman Goodall seconded. The motion carried with seven yes votes.

The resolution to create the TDD is on pp. 13-14. Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):

WHEREAS, the City of Webb City, Missouri (the “City”) desires to facilitate the following transportation-related improvements: (1) a new three-lane roundabout intersection at Centennial Drive and Highway 171 and approximately 4,000 linear feet of associated roadway (however, if final approval of the roundabout intersection is not received from the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, this portion of the Project shall consist of the acquisition, design and construction of approximately 9,000 feet of roadway from Highway D to the south end of East Road to provide an alternative access route flow in and out of the City’s commerce park); (2) extension of East Street (Aylor to Daugherty Street – North Side); (3) extension of East Street (Southside of Daugherty to 171 Highway); and (4) other transportation-related improvements;

In its meeting of Feb 6, 2013, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission “…found the upgrades to the area noted above, to be a necessary and desirable extension of the state highways and transportation system….” and “…appointed the Southwest District Engineer, or her designee, as the Commission advisor to the Centennial Railroad TDD board of directors….” So, that is an interesting aside.

If this roundabout was definitely “necessary and desirable,” then perhaps the 7 accidents in 2014, compared to none in the four years from 2009-2012, are an acceptable tradeoff. (To be fair, there were 1-3 accidents per year nearby, including at the Hall street intersection a few hundred yards to the west, at which a concrete median now prevents left turns and reducing the accidents there).

But the “Lab Rats” title refers to the fact that this roundabout in particular seems to have been one big experiment on area drivers, myself included.

I should take a minute to state, for the record, that I am not necessarily against roundabouts, afraid of them, or entirely unfamiliar with them. In my 20’s, I even took a trip to England and Scotland and drove all over those countries—1400 miles in a bit over a week, through many a roundabout—without issues. Backwards. (You know what I mean. They drive on the left and circle the roundabouts clockwise—the opposite of the USA.)

Take a look at the roundabout as it was in early 2014 (via Google Earth):

I recall coming from the east in the right lane, entering the roundabout, doing my best to stay in my lane, but somehow being in the left lane after exiting the roundabout. This happened to me maybe three or four times before I figured out what I was doing wrong. Looking now at the irregular shape of the roundabout, and the poor lane markings (highlighted in the gallery images below), I now understand why I had so much difficulty.

I no longer have issues navigating the roundabout correctly, but there are plenty of drivers from outside the area that only come through once, or once in a while, and don’t have the chance to learn the idiosyncrasies of each new roundabout challenge.

And plenty of people had issues. Within weeks of completion, numerous complaints prompted MoDOT to change the guide arrows painted in the lanes, such as the one used in the left lane entering from the east or west, shown in the image below.

According to a KOAM News story by Jordan Aubey from November 2013, “MODOT says arrows like the one in Webb City, without the circle, have been used at roundabouts elsewhere, without any confusion from drivers.” However, “MODOT will paint on the asphalt a circle, symbolizing the roundabout, below the left arrow.” The way this is reported, it makes it sound as if the MoDOT engineer is saying that they’ll “dumb it down for us hillbillies.”

But the arrows weren’t the only difficulty. Or the only time MoDOT had to say, “oopsie!”  Just months after completion, apparently they realized that the lane markings had been painted entirely incorrectly. They ground off the paint and put down new lane lines. This, in addition to grinding off the arrows and putting the new ones with the “dots,” has made for a new problem that remains to this day: depending on the lighting, weather, and road conditions, it can be very challenging to know where the true marks are, because the old ones can still be seen. The gallery below highlights some of these issues, though I didn’t take photos at various hours, at night, or in the rain.

The grading of the roundabout (very high in the center) doesn’t allow drivers in cars close to the ground to have a good line of sight into and around where they must travel, to see the lane markings or the paths to follow. the Finally, the signage and road markings are very inconsistent from one roundabout to the next, from one side of this roundabout to the other, and even in the same lane of the this roundabout (see images below).

Little can be easily done about the site grading, but the issues with the pavement, lane lines, guide arrows, and signage can and should be addressed immediately. The entire intersection should be ground down, resurfaced, and repainted, with markings consistent all the way around and matching the signs. You really can’t understand the gravity of the issues unless you look through the gallery with full-size images and read the captions. Some of you will recognize what I am talking about—but if you aren’t familiar with this intersection from personal experience, you need to see the pictures.

Stay tuned for the next post (or two) in which I tackle the issues with the newest and most beloved roundabout a few miles west of this one.

Let’s begin on Centennial, facing north. So far, so good. Nice signage, and it matches the markings on the pavement.

First indication of a problem. The arrows are obviously painted over and redone, but you can also see that the lane dividers have been ground off and the lanes shifted.

The paint seems a bit aged–and this is *new* construction.

A whole lot of unmarked pavement here. Where do I go, again?

A right turn sends you east to Bus-49/MO-171 South (which goes north) or MO-249 South (which goes south) to I-44. Got it?

Still facing east; you can see the incompletely changed lane alignment at the right.

Turning around to face back west toward the roundabout; showing how far the lane was shifted (more than half a lane width).

Signs are good, if you know what they refer to. Do you know that Centennial Ave goes south and East Road goes north?

We’re getting close, rapidly decelerating from 70 MPH – do you see the arrows on the street yet?

Now I can see the painted arrows. Wait, why is the one in the right lane just a straight ahead arrow and not a curvy one like in the right lane going north? Inconsistency #1.

This looks really odd (confusing) at night.

Wait – now you tell me I can turn right from the center lane? Inconsistency #2.

Wow. This is a mess. Repainted arrows, realigned lanes, ground off arrows, new entry boundaries — imagine what this looks like when the road is wet, at night.

Same messed up markings from the other side.

Still looking west, perhaps about to turn right. But if I’m going straight, it seems awfully difficult to see where the lanes are from here…

…or even from here.

Now I can sort of see the lanes, but they could certainly be marked more clearly. Notice the misplaced dashed lines? Did the paint peel up and shift over?

Leaving the roundabout to the north (East Rd.) Two lanes quickly collapse to one.

Facing south on East Rd. toward the roundabout. Now here are some good, standard signs over the lanes. But do they match what is painted on the road?

Closeup of sign over the right lane, indicating the three possible paths from this lane.

Wait — what? Inconsistency #3.

Does this mean the same thing as the sign over the lane? I have one second to decide…

Okay, I think I get it… but do you see where the lane was aligned before they ground off the paint and started over?

Hmm… did they start with only one sounthbound lane, or did they really move it this far?

Again, try navigating this on a rainy night.

So if I want to turn left, I cross over two–no, three–no, two–broken lane markers… Oh, *?#! it. Inconsistency #4.

Now, coming at the roundabout from town (the west), facing east. Lots of signs. Read fast! No marks on the pavement yet, though.

Still no marks on the pavement. Why no standard signs like there are entering from the north? Inconsistency #5.

Now there are finally some pavement markings, which you can see–unless it’s 9 am and sunny–then there are just shiny black patches. (Trust me, I know.)

Even on this cloudy day, can you see the arrow in the right lane?

No wonder you couldn’t. It’s worn away. You can actually see the marks where paint was ground off better than the intended arrow marker.

Imagine you’re in the left lane, at night, while a tractor-trailer is on your right. You’d better hope the rig can tell which lane to be in. Are you confident?

Conveniently, if you’re straddling the lane line, there is an indicator of where you should stop and look. Sort of. Wait — is there a right-turn-only lane here? It kind of looks that way.

Sing it: Don’t know why / I went down 249 / Faded arrows.

Last one, exiting to the east: lots of paint/tape transferred to the wrong places here.