Clearing Two Lanes at Once - TowPLows for Soldotna and Juneau

The Alaska Department of Transportation sent out a press release saying they're going to experiment with a tow plow that clears two lanes at once.   Here's a screen shot from a YouTube video of one of these machines in Pennsylvania.  

Screen Shot from Pennsylvania TowPLow YouTube video

The description (definitely promoting these) on the video says:

This is a video of the innovative TowPlow being used on Pennsylvania highways. Invented in Missouri and widely used there, the TowPlow is a steerable trailer equipped with a snow plow moldboard and cutting edge that allows the snow plow truck driver to plow a much wider path than could be done with the truck alone.

The DOT release says they're going to test them in the two locations to see how they work and they should allow other trucks to go clear other roads sooner.  One of the video commenters thought in Pennsylvania they'd use them to cut jobs.

An evaluation of the tow plow testing on three Ohio roads (pdf) in 2010-2011 did not mention costs or savings, but listed these performance benefits and concerns:

 Benefits
Incorporating the TowPLow into Ashtabula County’s snow and ice operations proved to be a valuable addition to their snow and ice removal fleet. The County discovered several aspects of their operations that significantly benefitted from utilizing TowPLow.

• Increases the overall level of service provided to the travelling public •    Provides safer road conditions 

• Plows and treats more lanes faster and more efficiently 

• Maintains favorable pavement conditions longe 

• Limits snow and ice from bonding to the pavement 

• Frees trucks to plow and treat areas of need – ramps, shoulders, other routes, etc. 

• Completes snow and ice operations faster – less fuel, labor, and material 

• Requires less cleanup after the storm •    Decreases equipment maintenance 

Concerns  -Ashtabula County identified the following concerns regarding the implementation of the TowPLow into their snow and ice operations

• Impeding traffic flow – most importantly emergency vehicles 

• Striking obstacles on the shoulder not visible in white-out conditions (e.g., stranded vehicles) 

• Visibility of the TowPLow in blowing snow – especially snow thrown from the front plow 

• Breaking down of the tow vehicle effectively downs two trucks unless another truck is capable of towing the plow

Image from Ohio Report on TowPlow testing

The study also recommended some improvements before purchasing the equipment:

Prior to purchasing the TowPLow, several improvements to both the TowPLow and tow vehicle should be considered. Although not necessary to achieve positive results, these advancements will simplify operation for the drivers, ensure the system is utilized to its maximum extent, and help to alleviate some of the concerns.

TowPLow improvements

• Include a polytank for pre-wetting salt  

• Add a laser alignment system to define the edge of the plow 

• Position a camera at the rear of the TowPLow to view traffic behind the unit 

• Install a hub odometer on the trailer wheel for tracking the TowPLow’s usage

Tow vehicle improvements

• Purchase a truck with added horsepower and torque to increase towing performance 

• Move the material spreader under the truck frame behind the cab to enhance material application coverage (current application is altered by the trailer tongue) 

• Clearly identify the hydraulic lines for easier trailer connection

A North Dakota study (pdf) is much more succinct and does include some cost analysis:

Summary
The initial cost of the TowPLow is $74,389 with a 17 year expected life. The Bismarck District estimated the labor and equipment cost (not including the fuel) for the regular snow removal operation is $1,754 per snow event. They estimate the TowPLow operation labor and equipment cost was $782 per snow event. This results in a savings of $972 per snow event when using the TowPLow. Using the TowPLow in the snow removal operation frees up three snow plow trucks to address other major routes to better meet service levels for the public. These costs are unique to Bismarck. Although different urban and rural roadways may require different equipment and labor hours than the Bismarck section, it appears the TowPLow operation does offer a cost savings to the regular snow removal operation.
Generally speaking, the Bismarck and Fargo District comments indicate that the TowPLow is more efficient in clearing snow, and maybe safer for the employee and the public (in terms of reduced snow fog)..

I tend to be skeptical of in-house evaluations. By the time the organization gets far enough along to test the equip for several months, there is often a bias to buy the glitzy new stuff, unless it does really terribly. The bias may well not even be conscious.  But little things point to it.  For instance in this Pennsylvania study, which looks more like a promotional pamphlet than an evaluation, there is a "What are the Benefits" section, but no "Costs" section.  Instead, there's a section called "Points to Consider."  Subtle, but significant. 


From a Pennsylvania study:

What Are the Benefits?
In addition to reductions in equipment use and personnel time, savings and benefits include:

• The added weight of the Tow Plow increases truck fuel consumptionby about 10-15%; however, compared to using two trucks to do the same job, this is actually a fuel savings of 85-90%. 

• The Tow Plow can be used in a plow train, in place of a truck thatcould be deployed on a different route, thus increasing overall level of service. 

• The Tow Plow requires standard plow and trailer maintenance — asavings compared to maintenance that a second truck and plow requires. 

• The Tow Plow can be used strictly for spreading/antiskid applicationswhen plowing is not necessary. 

• During non-winter months, the Tow Plow can be used as a water tank.

Points to Consider
Here are points to consider when making a Tow Plow investment decision:   

• The cost of a Tow Plow purchased through PennDOT’s DGS Plow Contract is $73,790. 

• Required truck modifications costing $15,500 include a rear hitch module, hydraulic upgrade, and two in-cab controls; no engine or transmission changes are necessary. 

• If the tow vehicle goes down for maintenance, then the Tow Plow is out of service unless another truck with the required modifications is available. 

• The Tow Plow can be configured for anti-icing at a cost of $25,820, or with an 8 cubic yard granular material hopper at a cost of $18,184. n    Operators require overview and familiarization training, provided by the vendor. 

• The Tow Plow should probably not be deployed in urban areas during periods of high traffic volume.

 A Maine report put the costs of fitting the truck much lower:

Fleet Services, Bureau of Maintenance and Operations retrofitted a 2009 Volvo Wheeler to accommodate the towing of the plow. Changes to the truck were relatively minimal and included installation of a 45 ton pintel hook and the installation of hydraulic hoses from the trucks wing tower to the tongue of the Tow Plow trailer. Hydraulic fluid from the wing up/down function operated the lifting and lowering motion of the tow plow and fluid from the D/A slide operated the two steering axles of the trailer. These axles articulate to a maximum (see Photos 1 and 2). The standard wing is not needed when using the Tow Plow. The 8 yard hopper mounted on the tow trailer was operated by utilizing the trucks existing spreader controls.

The retrofit of the truck took about 2 days to complete at a cost of approximately $1,000 including materials.

That's considerably less that the $15,000 costs Pennsylvania reported.

Ohio says the modifications of their truck was about $5000.


 An ADN story says the Alaska plows cost $90,000 each, which puts them about $16,000 more than Pennsylvania and North Dakota paid for theirs.  But the story said the figure included shipping and installation.  What does installation mean here?  Does that include the modification of the trucks that tow them?  If not, then $16,000 for shipping seems a bit steep.

Totem lists the cost to ship a 24 foot* truck to Anchorage from Seattle at $4,036.40.  That leaves $12,000 to get it to Seattle from the manufacturer.  And given the Alaska State Ferry, a part of the Alaska Department of Transportation, goes from Bellingham to Juneau, you'd think they could work out something much cheaper, given the ferry isn't that crowded in the winter.  

*Since the total clearing path of a regular plow truck pulling a TowPlow can reach up to 24 feet, I don't think the plow could be longer than 24 feet.

LENGTH	PER FOOT RATE	OCEAN FREIGHT RATE	ESTIMATED OCEAN FUEL SURCHARGE 32.5%*	PORT CHARGE	ESTIMATED TOTAL PER VEHICLE,US$
24	$123.00	$2,952.00	$959.40	$125.00	$4,036.40

The ADN story also says the

"The one on the Kenai Peninsula will be used in the urban areas like Soldotna and Kenai as well as wider sections of area highways from Sterling to Kalifornsky Beach Road"

But the Pennsylvania study concluded:

The Tow Plow should probably not be deployed in urban areas during periods of high traffic volume.

 But then 'urban' is a relative term and Soldotna and Kenai probably wouldn't qualify by Pennsylvania standards.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/02/15/2791319/soldotna-area-sees-first-use-of.html#storylink=cpy

Energy, Caring, and Lots of Ideas at Bainbridge Graudate [Graduate] Institute Intensive

IslandWood Welcome Center

I got invited to the Bainbridge Graduate Institute intensive yesterday and today.  This is a small private school founded by Libba and Gifford Pinchot.  When I asked Gifford today how they came to this ambitious project, he said it happened after 9/11.  He had a meeting scheduled in the World Trade Center on 9/12.  His wife was somewhere on the Amazon on 9/11 and it took some time for her to find out he was ok.  After that they decided to do something meaningful and important.

I've been hearing about BGI because my son-in-law teaches there (which is how I got an invite.)  Underlying this all is a strong belief that people going into business today must have a strong sense of how the business affects the environment, their employees, their clients and a list of other things.  I also got the sense that these students are more likely to end up starting their own businesses rather than be looking for someone to hire them.

From the BGI Website:

BGI began an industry movement by offering the first MBA in Sustainable Business.

Our founders created the Bainbridge Graduate Institute to develop business solutions for the world’s most pressing challenges. BGI’s MBA and Certificate programs are specifically designed to integrate sustainability—environmentally and socially responsible practices—with traditional business education so that you can harness the power of business for good in the world.

Innovation is fundamental to the BGI spirit. Our community’s collective intelligence and energy drive industry breakthroughs that advance sustainability across the globe. Your BGI education introduces you to a dynamic community of change agents—industry pioneers, world-class faculty, business-leading alumni and talented peers—who are working together to change business for good.

Our graduates lead the evolution of business by developing their own successful ventures, guiding established companies and organizations towards more sustainable futures, and bringing sustainable practices to the greater business community. Join our community of business leaders, and you will learn how to create profitable solutions for a better world."

 This was a class on Entrepreneurship and each of the students is developing a business plan for an organization they are creating.  They'd gotten the lecture beforehand online and the class time was spent working on their projects and presenting where they were to the others in the class.  Lots of interesting idea, good exchange, and enthusiasm.  Clearly these students have a goal in mind and the class is helping them get there.



The intensive is Thursday afternoon, Friday, and Saturday at IslandWood - a beautiful and very environmentally correct (they even have composting toilets) conference/education center type place in the middle of a forest on Bainbridge Island.  The focus this weekend is

Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems: Feeding Our Passions

Currently, the world’s population stands at over 7 billion and counting.  It is no small feat to determine ways to feed our expanding population using sustainable practices. One of the key messages from the United Nations 2012 State of Food and Agriculture Report is “Investing in agriculture is one of the most effective strategies for reducing poverty and hunger and promoting sustainability.”
February’s theme, Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems, will spotlight the important areas where work is being done to solve local and global food issues, as well as focus on others where we still need to innovate and design solutions that will allow all people to thrive.

The evening featured a panel discussion with some of the visiting faculty and moderated by Board Chair Pinchot (second from the left.)  The others, starting on the left (using the bios from the website) were:

Tim Crews is broadly interested in what agriculture can learn from the prairie or forest about sustainability. Tim’s current research focuses on reducing and eliminating dependence on synthetic fertilizers in perennial agriculture. For 18 years prior to coming to The Land Institute in September 2012, Tim was a Professor of Environmental Studies and Agroecology at Prescott College in Arizona. He was a visiting researcher in Australia with CSIRO in 2002 and with Rothamsted Research in the U.K in 2009. Tim received his Ph.D. from Cornell University in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and was an Ecology post-doc fellow at Stanford University before taking his faculty position at Prescott.


Carol Sanford has been leading major consulting change efforts in both Fortune 500 and new economy businesses for more than 30 years. Her client list includes long-term relationships with Colgate Europe and Africa; DuPont Canada, US, Asia and Europe. She also works with new economy companies like Intel, Agilent and leaders of corporate responsibility such as Seventh Generation. In addition, Carol is a judge and mentor for University of Washington Global Business Center Social Entrepreneur Competition in Seattle.

She combines her economic development experience with her extensive business education and background when working with Responsible Governance in Community, Provincial and Regional Policy and Education. Carol has published dozens of works in 10 languages, including a series of articles in Executive Excellence, Stephen Covey’s newsletter and At Work, a Berrett-Koehler Journal. Her book, The Responsible Business: Re-imagining Sustainability and Success, was published in February 2011.


Frederick Kirschenmann is a longtime national and international sustainable agriculture leader. He served as the Leopold Center‘s second director from July 2000 to November 2005, when he was named a Distinguished Fellow. He joined the board of the Stone Barns Center in 2004 and was elected president in 2007. In January 2008, he assumed a half-time appointment at Stone Barns, dividing his time between Iowa and New York, to explore ways that rural and urban communities can work together to develop a more resilient, sustainable agriculture and food system. He has held numerous appointments, including the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board and the National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production operated by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and funded by Pew Charitable Trusts.

Upon his return to North Dakota in 1976, he converted his family’s 2,600-acre farm in south central North Dakota to a certified organic operation. He has developed a diverse crop rotation that has enabled him to farm productively without the synthetic inputs of fertilizers and pesticide, while simultaneously improving the health of the soil. Kirschenmann’s farm has been featured in National Geographic, Business Week, Audubon, the LA Times and Gourmet magazine.

As you can imagine, the discussion was full of challenging ideas.  Tim raised more issues I hadn't heard about before like the life cycle of soil including his study of the soils of the Hawaiian Islands which range from some of the youngest to some of the oldest on earth.  The rapid depletion of Phosphorous because of our agricultural practices also came up as did his current work in developing perennial agriculture crops in Kansas.  As I understood it, getting perennial crops preserves the soil better than planting new wheat or sorghum crops each year.  Fred added that there is no one solution.  That going all organic or all vegan would have problems too.  And the incentive systems for agribusiness do not lead them to doing what's good for the soil or the rest of the environment.

Gifford has a little Charlie Rose in him as he asked probing questions of the panelists.

Today I spent time in Carol's class and I'll try to put something up on that later. [Later: There are two posts. The first one on Carol has a link to the second.] It got my brain rocking as a lot of her ideas overlap things I'm working on, but with a twist. 


In case anyone is thinking the name Gifford Pinchot is familiar, yes, Gifford is the grandson of the man who played a huge role in US conservation, including playing a major part in creating the Chugach National Forest in Alaska.  There's quite a bit about him in Charles Wohlforth's The Fate of Nature. 

These Pictures Aren't Remarkable Except For The Blue

We've been in the Seattle area almost a month now and today was only the third day that had a lot of blue sky.   It's not supposed to last. 

But I my granddaughter (and daughter) give me all the sunshine I need. 

Little Free Libraries

I passed this little "neighborhood library" the other day on a run.  Cute, I thought, but it's more than just cute. 

It turns out that this is part of a world wide movement.

From Littlefreelibrary.org:

Our Mission

• To promote literacy and the love of reading by building free book exchanges worldwide. 
• To build a sense of community as we share skills, creativity, and wisdom across generations
• To build more than 2,510 libraries around the world - more than Andrew Carnegie--and then more.

You can buy a library or make one.  They have plans on their website. 

I think these should be everywhere.







UPDATE Feb 15 7pm:  Here's one more I ran across today.

Kulluk Unified Command Final Update #45

I learned about the official announcement that the Kulluk and the Noble Discoverer - the two oil rigs that Shell had working in the Arctic last year - were being sent to Asia for extensive work from the New York Times and the Anchorage Daily News, but NOT from an email from the Kulluk Unified Command.  The Unified Command's last Update, number 44, was posted January 30.  So  I decided to write my own Update #45.  

"Update #45: Kulluk continues to remain stable – engineering analysis complete

Unified Command continues to oversee preparations for the next steps in the Kulluk embarrassment. Multiple entities remain involved including: the U.S. Coast Guard, Shell, the State of Alaska, Smit Salvage and Det Norske Veritas, and, as little as we can get away with, the media.

• Unified Command’s priority continues to be the safety of all personnel, the environment, and Shell's bottom line.
• Close coordination with the communities of Kodiak, Old Harbor, and any others we can buy off is ongoing.
• Old Harbor Native Corporation, in collaboration with Unified Command, continues to develop plans to access the shoreline and surrounding area with a lucrative contract from Shell to clean up life boat debris in return for their public praise of Shell's efforts.
• The UC has received the final engineering analysis report on the damage to the Kulluk, but we will not release this to the public unless required to by the courts.  However, we are pleased to announce that we are rewarding the tireless efforts of the crew of the Kulluk and also the Noble Discoverer, whose problems we were much more successful in keeping out of the media,  with a North Pacific cruise to Asia aboard the two rigs.  While there, out of sight from the media, in order to further enhance the already completely reliable, state of the art Arctic safety features of the rigs, we will have 350 of the world's best naval architects and ship builders design even more incredible safety features."

When I wrote this, yesterday afternoon there was no real Update #45 from the Unified Command.  When the really big news came out Monday, that both rigs - the Kulluk along with Noble Corp's Noble Discoverer, on contract to Shell and sitting more quietly in Seward - are headed to Asia for repairs, the Unified Command was silent.   Nothing on the website.  No emails to people on the list as I would have expected like the first 44 updates.  

But no, the press release came from Shell Alaska.  Real reporters, like the ADN's Lisa Demer, know these things, but amateurs like me were left in the dark when the announcement came out. 

So as I was going back to the websites for screenshots of their old announcements for my snarky Update #45 post  to show that there is no mention of this latest move, two days after it got international attention, I found a real Update #45, dated 5pm yesterday (Wednesday.)


As you read through the REAL Update #45, you'll see that in some ways, I'm beginning to get the hang of writing these things. Partly it's because they keep repeating themselves. 

The new info I see includes:

1.  The Unified Command is shutting down.

Propsed Kulluk Route from Kodiak to Dutch Harbor from Fact Sheet

2.  The Kulluk is going to Dutch Harbor - a ten day trip - "where a purpose-built dock for the Kulluk’s conical shape is situated" before being 'dry-towed' to Asia.


The rest I think was already out in the world Monday. 

As you read it, note how upbeat the update is.  "The Kulluk's in great shape. Oh by the way there was a bit of damage, but nothing you wouldn't expect from spending a couple of weeks on the rocks in pounding Aleutian surf. " Also note the difference in language in the quote from the Coast Guard's Paul Mehler and Shell's Sean Churchfield. 


The REAL Update:

DATE: February 13, 2013 5:30:00 PM AKST

For more information contact:

Unified Command Joint Information Center at (907) 433-3417

Update #45: Kulluk Response Unified Command to stand down

Feb. 13, 2013

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – The Unified Command met its objectives for the Kulluk response and will stand down Wednesday afternoon.

“Agency representatives will return to their normal roles and responsibilities," said Capt. Paul Mehler III, the Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator. “The Coast Guard will continue to monitor the activities involved in prepping the Kulluk for movement and I will lift the Captain of the Port order once all the requirements have been met."

“Our objectives for the duration of this response have been to ensure the safety of all responders involved, protect the environment, and prepare the Kulluk for its next port. Thanks to the hard work and professionalism of all those involved in this extraordinary effort, we have achieved these goals,” said Sean Churchfield, Shell Incident Commander. “I want to thank all of the individuals involved in the recovery effort for their dedication to ensuring a successful outcome.”

After weeks of thorough assessment, analysis and on board activity, Shell confirmed that the Kulluk is safe to tow out of Kiliuda Bay. This decision is based on independent review by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) validating that the Kulluk’s structural integrity and stability, post grounding, is sound for towing. Shell has received DNV Class Certification* and Flag State approval** for the Kulluk. As part of the preparations for the tow, an independent warranty surveyor will approve the towing vessels and equipment arrangements and witness the connection of the tugs to the Kulluk. (To learn more, read the fact sheet.)

The vessel will be towed to Dutch Harbor where a purpose-built dock for the Kulluk’s conical shape is situated. This will allow for heightened safety as the Kulluk is prepared for a dry-tow transit to Asia, where it will undergo repairs.  The Kulluk will be towed by  three ocean-going tugs to Dutch Harbor and accompanied by the response vessel Nanuq.  The transit time is approximately 10 days.

The completion of the damage assessment revealed that the inner hull of the Kulluk was not breached and that all fuel tanks remain intact.  The outer hull did receive damage as expected with a vessel being aground during adverse weather.  In addition, the Kulluk encountered water damage to its superstructure which resulted in damage to technical equipment and a breach of windows and hatches. Over the past few weeks, all damaged windows and hatches on the Kulluk’s main deck have been secured, and where necessary, temporary steel structures have been put in place to ensure that the vessel is weather tight and prepared for the tow.

Plans continue for the clean-up of the lifeboat debris on Sitkalidak Island. Shell is working with the Old Harbor Native Corporation who will be overseeing the teams working to clear related debris from the area, but due to the extreme challenges of the terrain, this activity will continue for some time so it can be carried out safely.

“The State determined that the command objectives established on day one have been achieved and therefore that it is appropriate to stand down the Unified Command. The State will continue to work with Shell, Coast Guard and stakeholders to ensure that the debris on our Kodiak beaches is recovered,” said State On-scene Coordinator Steve Russell. “We will also be available to those with questions or concerns about this response.”

“Throughout this response, our federal, state, local and tribal partners have remained dedicated to ensuring the safety of Alaska’s maritime communities and environment,” said Mehler.

During the peak of the response, more than 750 dedicated and hard-working individuals from all over the world worked to bring the recovery to a safe conclusion.

For inquiries regarding the Kulluk, please contact the Shell U.S. media line: 713-241-4544. Inquiries to the Coast Guard should be directed to Petty Officer 1st Class David Mosley at 907-271-2660. Inquires to the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation should be directed to State On-scene Coordinator Steve Russell at 907-262-3401.

*Note:  I'm not completely sure what DNV Class Certification means.  Here's a description from DNV's website:

All ships being assigned class with DNV will be given a class notation consisting of a construction symbol, a main character of class, service area restriction notations and main ship type notations, as applicable. Class notations cover mandatory and optional requirements. Class notations may be given a supplemental symbol. The supplement is used to identify special requirements or limitations related to the class notation.
All class notations are listed and categorised in the DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, part 1, chapter 2 and the DNV Rules for High Speed, Light Craft and Naval Surface Craft, part 1, chapter 1. To purchase the Rules, please go to our webshop. [The webshop link didn't work, but here's a link to all their rules.]

I do not know anything about this other than what I'm reading.  But it would be interesting to see whether Shell's certification has a supplement identifying "special requirements or limitations."

Here's a bit more from their Rules for Classification of Ships - January 2013.

DNV is a global provider of knowledge for managing risk. Today, safe and responsible business conduct is both a license to operate and a competitive advantage. Our core competence is to identify, assess, and advise on risk management. From our leading position in certification, classification, verification, and training, we develop and apply standards and best practices. This helps our customers safely and responsibly improve their business performance. DNV is an independent organisation with dedicated risk professionals in more than 100 countries, with the purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment.
The Rules lay down technical and procedural requirements related to obtaining and retaining a Class Certificate. It is used as a contractual document and includes both requirements and acceptance criteria.

**I'm not sure what Flag Ship Approval means.  Or what it looks like.  I found a document from the US Coast Guard that may be related (or not):  DNV RULES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPS AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Mac Users - Check (√) This Out »»»» Keyboard Shortcuts

I often find I need a check mark.  I've figured out ways to get one, but I really wanted to do it simply from the keyboard.  Well, I finally figured it out.  I don't even remember how I found it.

It's really simple:

Option + V

(Hold the option, then type V.)


Is that enough for a post all by itself?  No.  Well I also am looking for an arrow to stick in.  I don't think there is this simple an arrow key [let me know if there is].  But, for some things this » is good enough.  And that can be done from the keyboard too.





Opt + Shift + \  =    »

There are better arrows but they are not instantly available from the keyboard.  But there are a lot of keyboard shortcuts like this that you can find easily by looking at the Keyboard Viewer.   This shows you all the characters.  Here it shows all the characters on the normal keyboard.  If you press the shift key, it shows you the characters. 

1.  Show Keyboard

Below shows me holding down the option key to see what characters you get.  (Yes, I changed the background image in the middle of this.)  You can see there are different characters. 

2.  Show Keyboard, holding option key

To find the keyboards, you go to the Language symbol on the top toolbar - here it's the American flag.  Then go down to Open Keyboard.

3.  Drop down menu from Language icon to Open Keyboard

If you don't have the Flag in your toolbar - it's related to the language you have your keyboard set to - you can go to Apple System Preferences,

then go to Language & Text.

At languages and text, you'll need to get to Input Sources, and then at the bottom check "Show input menu in menu bar."

That should get you a flag in the toolbar on top.  Then go back up to (Image 3)  Dropdown Menu to Show Keyboard.

Have fun.  There are just so many things hidden in these machines to discover.  

I've also circled the Unicode Hex Input.  You can use that to get arrows - left, right, up, down - that you can get using code.  I'll add that in later.

Seattle Beach Walk And Lots Of Water Birds

Surf Birds in Flight

Black Turnstone in flight

Sunday we did an urban hike along West Seattle's Alki Beach waterfront and I was surprised by all the waterbirds and other marine activity including scuba divers and seals. 

Sometimes seeing birds fly makes identification much easier.  The surf birds above were grouped with the black turnstones, but the turnstone's black and white wing design made it easy to identify when we got to the bird book. 

And along with these photos of the sitting surf birds, we were pretty sure we got these right too.  And my trusty birder expert confirmed. 

Surf Birds Not Flying

Surf Scoters

Sometimes, even with my little camera I can get reasonable photos of birds, but the Harlequin Ducks were too far out. 

Ferry headed toward downtown Seattle, from West Seattle

Alaska Redistricting Board Meets Under Uncertainty To Plan Next Steps

With a petition pending before the Alaska Supreme Court and a US Supreme Court case challenging Sec. 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, the Alaska Redistricting Board met to plan out its next steps.  I listened to this online.  I missed the first ten minutes because it wasn't connected through the online link.  I heard part of it through a phone link and when the online connection came on, through there.  I didn't really get on until they began asking questions of the attorney after his briefing of the legal issues.  Some of the discussion was hard to hear.  So, below is what I caught - first an overview and then my rough notes.

Members present:  A couple of times the Chair said something that sounded like all the members were present at the meeting in Anchorage and not there by phone.  All spoke at one point or another.

Time:  
The Board met for about 70 minutes, took a 15 minute break and then went into Executive Session, which lasted twice the Chair's estimate of 45 minutes.   
Finally they met in a public meeting for about 5 minutes.


Actions: 

• Mapped out a very tentative time line
• Authorized the Board Chair to initiate the hiring of a new Executive Director starting today
• Authorized attorney, if their petition is rejected, to seek clarification from Supreme Court about what they can and can't do in redoing the plan. 

Topics Discussed:

• Possible Appeal of Alaska Supreme Court to US Supreme Court
• Shelby County v. Holder case which challenges Section 5 of the US Voting Rights Act (VRA)  - for more information on that case which is scheduled for Feb. 27 you can look at Lawyerscommittee and Alabama site al.com. The first link has links to all facets of the case.
• The impact of both court decisions on the Board:
•   have to wait for Alaska Supreme Court decision to know what they need to do
•   wait for US SC decision to know whether still covered by Sec. 5 of the VRA.
• They could do their “Hickel” Process plan and then wait until the US SC decision on the Shelby County Case is in before working to meet the VRA.  That should be in by July 2013.
• Meaning of Alaska Supreme Court Decision:
•  Do they really have to start every district from scratch?
• What happens if districts, say, in Anchorage are the same?  Or District 40? 
• Who would be able challenge the result? (Attorney: Probably no new parties could, but if maps were changed, old parties would likely be able to challenge them.)
• What steps of review?  We don’t need to get Court approval each step of the way, but then they could go back and challenge our process anyway?
• Can we ask that the new Supreme Court justices recently appointed take over from the retiring judges? (Attorney:  no, but who knows what they will do?)
• What will the VRA benchmark be?  The one we used or the one approved by DOJ when they approved our Plan? (Attorney:  The new one probably.)
• Was Hickel Plan an issue in 2000 process?  (Attorney: no)
• If Shelby County case overturns Sec. 5 how does that affect the rest of the VRA? (Attorney:  Sec. 2 still holds, but only apples to intentional discrimination.)
• Timeline:   Chair Torgerson had a draft plan which they discussed. (I was able to get a copy of this from the staff via email).  This was just the roughest of plans, given the uncertainties, but at least it allowed them to get a sense of what needs to happen and how long it might take.  They made some adjustments in the discussion. 

2-12:  Board Meeting
2-12:  Board Authorizes Hiring Executive Director
2-12:  Start Hiring Process
3:14:  Board interviews:  (in person)
3:15:  Board hires Executive Director
3-18:  New Director works with Taylor Bickford (old Director)
4:02:  Board Meets; start drafting Hickel plans
4:05:  Board Adopts Hickel Plans
4-06:  Board Meeting if needed
7-15:  US Supreme Court rules
8-09:  Board Adopts final plan
8-19:  Board forwards final plan to Superior Court
8-20:  Superior Court reviews
8-29:  Superior Court set schedule for hearing on Plan
9-09:  Superior Court Hearing (Fairbanks)
9-20:  Superior court issues ruling
9-30:  Appealed to Supreme Court
10-08:  Supreme Court Hearing (Anchorage)
11:-1  Supreme Court ruling
11:15:  Submit to Department of Justice (if needed)
1-15-14:  Approval from DOJ received.

Below are my rough meeting notes.  As always, beware.  There are omissions, gaps, approximations, and other distortions that will have to be endured until official transcripts are available.  The purpose of these notes is to give a sense of what was discussed and a place to start to ask other questions.  Don't rely on these except as a starting point to get better confrimation. 

Board Meeting  2/12/13

1 855 463 5009 call in number

10:10am AK time finally got through

Board Attorney Michael White:  Going over his memo,

We have no idea when the decision will be.  I suspect sometime in the next month we’ll get some guidance. 

Board Options:

Switched from phone to online.


Seek US Supreme Court to review AK SC decision.  Appropriate for US SC to review if there is a federal question.  They have violated the Supremacy Clause by dictating the process we have to use.  Looked at it, and not optimistic there’s a question there or that SC will accept it.

Memo explains the rest. 

Chair John Torgerson:  Start with federal.  SC said we have to ignore the federal law and constitution as we start.  And then we can start for real.  Upside down in terms of which law takes precedence.  You called it the Supremacy Clause and for me it’s Separation (Usurpation?)of Powers.   Hope we look at SC as an option.

White:  We could.  90 days to request the court to review it.  Now pending.  Time line of 90 days still going. 

Torgerson:  Challenge to VRA Sec. 5 itself in US SC now.  If we filed an action to overturn AK SC - would it get wrapped up in this issue?  You sent a memo, don’t know if other members got to read it.

Lastly, should we wait til we get ruling before going to SC?

White:  Case challenging constitutionality set to be heard Feb. 27.  US SC has lots of issues before them.  Unless of a clear mind and quick decision, probably no decision til end of June.  Checked with my sources in DC, say decision at end of June.
If declare Sec. 5 unconstitutional, they’ve have a split decision  Shelby County Case - lined up pretty clear up and down
Could be unconstitutional all states or just Shelby County.
Unless Congress acts very quickly,
If unconstitutional, then board faced with different set of circumstances.  Makes sense to wait until that decision comes down before deciding what to do.  Perhaps get the Hickel part done,  if don’t have to deal with Sec. 5, then no need to revise that plan. 
My advice, to wait to adopt a final plan, no time pressure now.  No deadlines in court case.  If we start over, not the same as 2011.  Same place as last April when we got Court order to do Hickel process.  No timelines or deadlines we face except 2014 election, so by June 2014 or whatever date the division of elections needs. 

Torgerson:  Earlier said, Court was telling us to start over.  Majority or dissenting don't remember who said it. 
White:  Never exactly said.  Said do Hickel process.  Minority said you’re wrong making them go back to beginning.
Torgerson:  30 days to sue after we adopted a final plan.  Who can sue us?  Goes to Superior Court ???
White:  SC said, ??? Board would have to go to process. 2nd Amended Plan to trial court.  Under old order, we had 30 days.  I don’t think new parties should be able to come in.  They’ve allowed challenges, but not new parties.  I’d ask court to prevent new parties.  The others would be allowed.
Torgerson:  Fact of law or can judge allow it.  History with this judge, he allows everything, truth, untruth, no one seen it, bring it on.
White:  …. I like our argument, still involved in the same process as before.  Doesn’t mean that if the districts are changed, then the parties already in the case could challenge it.  Say, we redraw a Matsu district, party already in the case could raise a challenge even if not challenged before.  New parties not allowed, but if new district.
Torgerson:  [Sarcastic comment.]
Clear under your findings, we need to draw a Hickel plan.  Need to move all the districts around.  No review of any court - no district by district explanation of why we did it.  Then go to process of adopting new Proclamation Plan.
White:  Have to start without considering the VRA.  If you draw district 40 the same as before w/o considering VRA?  Majority really didn’t like that they kept the same old districts in the template.  They thought the Hickel template tainted things, so court couldn’t determine ?? final plan.
Torgerson:  In my interpretation, comes down to redrawing Anchorage. ??? SE, is really there issue, not our issue if its the same.  Clear as mud.
White:  You said not subject to review.  Not prior to next step.  But in the opinion, seems to have established new area to Challenge.  Could challenge one district in the Hickel plan not constitutional and reverse.
Torgerson: Good strategy to talk about this later on? [in Exec session?]  Potentially Hickel plan will be reviewed, we just don’t have to submit it and say here you are.  You’ll refer to it as a footnote.
Jim Holm:  Confused.  Majority opinion - petition for review says:  Board failed the Hickel process, but then said, no requirements by constitution to submit a plan at any stage of the drafting to see if it applies.  How specifically could we prove, if we look at each district, we looked at compactness, socio-econ integrity.  We did all that and set up template based on that.  I don’t understand how they can have it both ways.  You aren’t required to submit it, but you are required to have Hickel plan.  Makes no sense to me.
White:  Sometimes difficult to understand what is required.  I think they said, we can’t tell if Constitutional, if it was necessary from strict compliance, because when you started you started with a plan originally where first priority was VRA.  Yes there was some ripple effect, but not every single district.  If not challenged up to this point, why do we have to go to the drawing board.  Majority said, we don’t care about that, may have limited your options and affected your final plan.  So go back.
Holm:  I agree with you.  Most confusing to me.  I believe that this Board took all those considerations.  I’m kind of like you I don’t quite understand.
White:  Hung up with 36 unchanged districts - true in template - but that was starting point and then we drew 4 different plans, without regard to VRA.  We had to take pop out of some urban areas in order to comply.  We then considered all major urban populations to get extra population. 
Opinion here:  By doing this you limited your options.  Of course you do that, one challenge from a party was proportionality issue.  10% out of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Kenai, but then proportionality issues.  Matthews in dissent  …. majority rules. 
Unless they reconsider, deal with that.
Mr. Brodie:  started with ??? people, and now midtown and Spenard?  ?????  Every district start over, not allowed to have any districts unchanged?  Enunciated by the minority.  How much weight does that category. ???
White:  Obviously 2/5 [minority judges] will also weigh in on final.  Does that mean no line can be exactly the same?  We can’t change anything?  Remains to be seen. Forms perfect districts for those area because % of Natives in that area is exactly 57%.  Do we have to throw that out?  I don’t know.  From majority, you may have limited your options so draw the Hickel plan.  All you’re doing is - we can’t tell if districts were tainted by VRA considerations.  thus, has ripple effect across the whole state.  We can’t tell if a better Hickel plan ????  Every line has to change?  Anchorage?  Everyone on board believes VRA did not affect Anchorage.  We have to change Anchorage around?  I suggest Majority opinion says start with blank template - start from scratch.  Seems to be saying.  Is that what they meant?  If we look at it and draw it same or close to before, will the court allow that?  Court doesn’t tell us. 
Brodie:  Use data????  change benchmark?
White:  Lisa Handley new benchmark will be the interim plan.  It’s been approved by court and DOJ, that would be the new benchmark.
Torgerson: Which makes interesting bedfellows.  I would think hard before I asked the board to start with new set of numbers.  I don’t think it’s right.  We know VRA takes nothing of real life into effects ?? - 10 candidates or whatever - not about racial bloc voting analysis.  To walk in now, this new analysis says we should be 60% instead of 32, I don’t know.  Talking about it earlier. 
I understand Michael saying you established, by law, a new benchmark.  Under that scenario we could redraw every two years.  Who would stop us?  When the rest of the law so rigid, this seems to be floating around.
What merit that in 2002 the Hickel process was never brought up, but now all of a sudden an issue?
White:  We pointed it out in hearings - they seem to think none.  No one even considered Hickel in 2002.  But now we know SC said, Hickel process is one you have to follow. 
Torgerson: I already know the answer, but say for the record.  We know two new SC justices approved, can we petition, beg, have new justices review the case?  Rather have justices who will have to live with their decision.
White:  You know the answer.  Carpeneti retired in January.  I can’t believe  . . . nothing we can do.  I don’t think Matthews, whether Carpeneti will continue because it will go so long… impossible to say.  More likely than not, continue. . .???
Torgerson:  this is a statement court made:  After setting forth the correct process for board to follow according to Constitution. . . they say themselves they are setting up a process, then say they only rule on constitutionality, but they are saying their process is the only correct one.  Not that it means anything.  Good to get it on the record I suppose. 
Article 6 Sec. 10 11 -- no where do they state two state majority required????
White: ???
Torgerson: This is Constitutional that SC has to uphold.  Only applying it to trial court, not to themselves. 
I think I’m about done.

Other things I want you to explain before we go to Executive Session - limit that to just strategy.
Sec. 2 violation of VRA - VRA isn’t going away?
White:  Only Sec. 5 challenged.  Sec. 2 prohibits intentional discrimination.  Prophylactic.  Congress tired, after passed VRA, had to go back in and have to knock down poll tax and other such laws.  Switched the burden - you can’t make any change in election.  You change a precinct line or polling place, you need pre-clearance.  That’s a problem states have with all those details. 
Sec. 2 - if you have the affect of discrimination - in Texas, court found intentional discrimination, showed how the legislature manipulated the system.  Thru emails, people drawing map made it look like they complied with VRA, but were actually making it worse.  Using same standard for intentional ???? in sec 5 either.
Torgerson:  said racial discrimination?  Only Alaska Natives?  Can non-native claim discrimination?
White:  Have to be a protected class, large enough to vote cohesively.  Under Sec. 2, doesn’t apply. Doesn’t apply unless protected class is majority in the district.  Has to be compact and contiguity requirement - not under Alaska law, but federal.  Remember in DC they showed you different districts.  Can’t gerrymander to create Alaska Native district.  In AK only Alaska Native covered.  Higher standard.
Torgerson:  If they throw out sec. 5 we need to spend an hour on Sec. 2
White:  Designed to protect the same people and same rights, to prevent intentional discrimination. 
Torgerson:  could take the place of Sec. 5?
White:  could, but not as rigorous.  Retrogressive? 
Torgerson: Benchmark on Sec. 2?  No requirement for present hearings or time line at all? 
White:  No.  only the election. 
Torgerson: other questions?  We went through ??? stuff?
Timeline before Exec. Session.
Starting point.

Hire ED - month, if we start tomorrow March 14 ready for interviews.  Have to fish for dates.  In-person interviews by board.  Hire next day.  Fridays and Mondays.  Bring Taylor [Bickford, former director] in that week as much as he can to work with new director. 
April 1 - draft Hickel plans all that week.
4/6 - adjourn until US SC ruled on Section 5
July 15, if court has something we can read
drafting and adopt final plan in Aug.   around 19 to Superior Court
stab  = review and cross motions - hearing 405 days
Ruling
Appeal to SC
Hearing in 8 days, and rule in 20 days
Final around Nov. 1
Final by January 14

Started working backwards from June 1.  Nice to have out 90 days before filing deadline.  Mar. 1 should be drop dead for DOJ approval.  If I had a goal, that’s what I’d shoot for. 

10 or 12 days depending on trial. 
No action to take on that at this point?
Brodie: ??? Look forward to meeting in August. . .
White:  Didn’t have anyone’s schedules but mine.  Hope that couple of, one Decision Making point - authorize me to start process to hire ED.  Workplace Alaska quicker and easier it says.  Should have this person by middle of March.  We could move interview

PeggyAnn McConnochie :  Because I know hiring never goes as fast as you hope, so I move that you start the process to hire ED.
White:  discussion?  Objection?  Hearing none, adopted,  Skip roll call since we’re all here.
I will start later today.  Rest is very fluid.  We could move to September  No idea what court calendar is if it ends up in Court.
Checked on software licensing - it’s ours.  We bought the software itself, no license requirement, but if we needed an update, there would be something associated with that.
Take a ten minute break, back at 11:25.  Anticipate not more than 45 minute Exec. Session.  Stand in recess til 11:25. 
Get back on after the exec session.

12:57 pm  Back from Exec. Session
Back on record - echo
Torgerson:  all members present. ES @ 90 mnutes
The uncertainty precludes doing too much now

Brodie:  ???
Torgerson:  Motion to authorize Mr. White to request clarification;
If SC does not honor our request for reconsideration, we file a motion for clarification to ask Court what they are asking us to do?
Adopted.
Brodie:  ??? can’t hear.  time and enrgy . .. personal time  . . .
Holmes: 
Greene:  Thank you chair for his efforts to learn more about what’s before us and what’s going to happen.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: Thank you to everyone for all your time, much appreciated, even if some in other areas don’t appreciate it, I do.
Torgerson: Next meeting around hiring and intrviews for ED.  About one month away, abut 14 March.  Could slide in either direction.  Would like all Board members here.  Could be two days depending on how many candidates we have to interview.  Mr. White, other than you’re a grandparent?
White:  ????to soft to hear clearly. 
Torgerson:  Adjourned 1:03pm  Thank you all for traveling. Adjourned.

Court Says No Time Limit on Response

The Redistricting Board has put up documents for today's (Tuesday) meeting (See details below.)  They include the agenda, which I posted Friday. 

Also up are the Dec. 28 Supreme Court Decision and the Board's petition to reconsider that decision, which was to have the Board start all over from scratch. 

There is also the ten page  Legal Memorandum, which is addressed to the Board and explains the Court's decision.  I have to confess I read it while rocking a baby in my arms (she's sleeping on my lap now as I type) and trying to get her to burp.  I even read some of it out loud to her, thinking it might put her to sleep, but she listened attentively. 

So I confess, I may have missed some important points, but the only new information I saw was in the conclusion.  Unfortunately, many of these documents are in a pdf format that I can't cut and paste from, so I have to retype them or give them in image form, which can't be read by sight impaired readers. 

Anyway, here's the stuff that was new to me.  From the conclusion:

"The Court has not yet ruled on the Board's Petition for Rehearing.  The clerk's office has indicated the Court is still considering whether or not to grant the Board's request for a rehearing and revision of its opinion.68  Pursuant to Appellate Rule 506, the Riley Plaintiffs are not permitted to file a response or opposition to the Board's Petition for Rehearing unless the Court expressly allows it.  The Riley Plaintiffs' attorney has informally requested such an opportunity, but the Court has not granted them permission.69"

68 Our office contacted the Alaska Supreme Court on January 29, 2013, to inquire as to whether a Petition for Rehearing is deemed denied after a certain amount of time, similar to a Motion for Reconsideration before a trial court which is deemed denied after thirty (30) days with no ruling from the court.   See Alaska R. Civ P 77(k)(4).  We were later informed that no such rule exists for a Petition for Rehearing and advised we would need to be patient as the Court is not required to make a decision on the Petition for Rehearing within any set time frame.  Moreover, we were advised that the Court was still deciding whether to entertain the Board's Petition for Rehearing and/or whether to allow the Riley Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.

69 Mr. Walleri [the Plaintiffs' attorney] informed Nicole Corr [who co-signed the Board's petition for reconsideration] during a telephone conversation that he had contacted the clerk's office soon after the Board filed its Petition for Rehearing and requested an opportunity to respond.  The Riley Plaintiffs did not file a formal written response.

The meeting is at 10am Alaska Time February 12, 2013 at the Board's office

411 W 4th Avenue, Suite 302
Anchorage, AK 99501

or, like me, you can listen in through the Alaska Legislature online link.

"Covering your feet with cushioned shoes is like turning off your smoke alarms."

As I kid I spent a lot of time barefoot, so when talk came out about barefoot running, my ears perked up.  I really like to run but I could never understand why running shoes were so expensive.  My doctor would always nag me about how running was bad for my knees.  But I didn't seem to have much trouble.  I don't run all that much.  Maybe 3.5 mile runs. My goal is three or four times a week, but it's easy to let cold weather or icy trails be excuses to slow down starting in November.  Shoveling snow, cross country skiing are also aerobic exercise.  But when I visit my mom in LA, I run more often. Because shoes are so expensive I tend to keep running in the old shoes even when it's clear the cushion effect is gone.  I like being able to feel my feet again. 

When the barefoot shoes came out, I checked up on them.  The blue shoes with the toes were just too weird for me but I did ask people wearing them how they felt.  I did read about barefoot running and like people who love the idea that chocolate and red wine are good for you, I was enjoying the reports on barefoot shoes.  I looked at videos like this one and realized that my natural running form is the barefoot way - landing on my forefoot and not on my heal. 

So in January, when we got to LA and we were walking around the Santa Monica mall on the way to a movie, I found a pair of minimalist shoes at the Sketchers store.  They still look like running shoes, but they have very thin soles by running shoe standards and there's lots of room for my toes to spread out. And they weigh almost nothing.

Here they are on my first day of running in them.  They felt great.  I can really feel the ground with these.  It's like running barefoot except all the little rocks are softened a bit when you step on them.

And then, I got the email that my book club was going to read Born to Run:  A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen  by Christopher McDougall.  The book mixes McDougall's personal story of running and having all sorts of typical running injuries and going to Mexico to find the super runners for a magazine story he's writing.  It wasn't until about page 150 that he actually starts talking about the research findings on running shoes and barefoot running.  He mixes a bunch of stories about different ultrarunners and barefoot runners and races, and the people who participate in with the info on the shoes.  The kind of thing I've been known to do here on the blog. 

The basic idea is that people have been running for thousands of years.  For many this was how they caught food.  They'd just keep running down an animal until it got exhausted.   So, this argument is that running is natural to humans, that we run to get food and that running keeps us healthy

The problem with running shoes is that instead of letting the foot feel the ground and react to those messages it gets back, the cushioned feet get lulled and stop doing what they need to do to naturally cushion the the body.

Quoting Stanford's NCAA Cross Country Coach of the Year, Vin Lananna:

"I think you try to do all these corrective things with shoes and you overcompensate.  You fix things that don't need fixing.  If you strengthen the foot by going barefoot, I think you reduce the risk of Achilles and knee and plantar fascia problems." (p.a69-70)

Or this from a study by Dr. Craig Richards, an Australian researcher:

"Runners wearing top-of-the-line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap shoes."  (p. 171)

 Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40. 

 And here's one that I loved hearing:

"As running shoes got worn down and their cushioning hardened the Oregon researchers revealed in a 1988 study for the Journal of Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy, runners ' feet stabilized and become less wobbly.'"

Now this is stuff I want to believe.  It also fits with my personal experiences.  But I did start carefully with the minimalist shoes. So far, running in the new shoes feels great.

But I am looking at other research on this.  

Here, for example, is a Harvard explanation with photos of ways the foot hits the ground.

It's also a warning, like so many others, that consumers should be careful of the claims of companies that make lots of money telling you their product - which fills a need people didn't know they had -  is good for you. In this case, it seems to be a need we didn't have and caused lots of people a lot of pain and suffering.  There is a section of the book that talks about the Oregon coach who first created fancy running shoes and the company Nike and how even Nike got around to pushing the benefits of running barefoot, but with their minimalist shoe on your foot.