I was surprised ITD had the displacement of eight businesses as one of its main four reasons for not choosing C-3 as its preferred alternative since this information is inaccurate. Long wanted me to stress in my comment letter that “there will be no definitive displacement of businesses (on C-3) and that this is misleading to the public.” I expect to see this information corrected in the subsequent IDT hearing information boards and in the DEIS/FEIS. Continue reading →

A highway is forever. Once paved, we cannot reclaim the Palouse Prairie or any other part of this area. Therefore it is important all the facts be carefully considered. Why choose E-2? It is only .09 mile shorter. The ITD safety data are not thorough enough to conclude any one alternative is safer than another. Continue reading →

John Crock, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 2/19/13

After speaking with an Idaho Transportation Department representative at the recent Highway 95 re-alignment forum, he admitted the safety numbers for the E-2 alternative are underestimates of the big picture, which in the E-2 option, old 95 still exists. People, including residents on that stretch, would still drive old 95. Accidents would occur and people would die on that old stretch. Of course, the traffic would be greatly less, so maybe accidents would only occur at one-tenth the current rate, but when you add in those numbers to the projected accident rate on E-2, E-2 is the most dangerous alternative.

C-3 obliterates the old 95 roadway, so there are no additional accidents and is thus safer in the big picture. In addition, ITD models E-2 as being safer than C-3 because there are no businesses on it since it hasn’t been built. As soon as there is high traffic flow on E-2, savvy business or property owners will develop the adjacent land, and it will soon be as congested as old 95 is today, meaning the lower accident projections will be short-lived. Continue reading →

It was especially helpful to see the road course for the central route and where it is in relation to the east route.

Hearing firsthand the challenges that occur when a highway cuts through a producing field, like farming equipment accessing those fields, and a firsthand history of land use and conservation on it offers valuable insight. Continue reading →

Mary Ullrich, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 1/25/13

In reflecting on testimony at Wednesday’s Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) hearing in Moscow, I would like to say a few things.  First, I do need to express great compassion for all those who stand to be affected adversely.  I sincerely hope that you will be compensated fairly and well by ITD.

For those who told stories of accidents and dangers on Reisenauer Hill, I hope that section of the highway will be redone to state and federal standards. This would be accomplished by going with Alignment C-3. Keep in mind if E-2 is built, the current highway will remain as it is (only as a county road) and many, especially local people, will be using that old highway.

For those who pleaded that ITD lower speed limits, add some center-line “rumble strips” and some carefully placed signage, I hope ITD will hear this loud and clear and take immediate action.

Keith G. Haley, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 1/24/13

A few important thoughts on the U.S. Highway 95 relocation.

The realignment of 95 south of Moscow will be permanent.

It is important we get it right. I feel certain the C-3 alternative route is absolutely the best choice.

Kas Dumroese, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News

With all due respect to Wayne Olson and Shelley Bennett, their angst is misdirected. The Paradise Ridge Defense Coalition welcomes a new U.S. Highway 95, just not by Paradise Ridge. PRDC members (hunters, farmers, foresters, small business owners, environmentalists, etc.) are concerned about safety and passionate about quality of life issues. My teenager commuted on U.S. 95, too.

We still drive on old U.S. 95 because ITD ignored law. With that mistake, ITD could have selected from many potential routes meeting project objectives without requiring the extensive time and money of a draft environmental impact statement, but instead pursued the route flanking Paradise Ridge (E2) that did. Although we could have been driving on a new route years ago, stubbornly, perhaps out of wounded professional pride, ITD pushes the version they admit is the noisiest and has the most negative effect on wildlife, Palouse Prairie and access by rural residents and emergency responders. ITD’s conclusion E2 will be safest is disingenuous – it does so by forcing nearly everyone who lives south of Moscow and north of Thorncreek Road off the new interstate and restricting them to commute on the existing, dangerous route. First responders to Hidden Village, for example, will still travel the old route. Continue reading →

Al Poplawski

Al Poplawski, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 1/22/13

The Paradise Ridge Defense Coalition appreciates the opportunity to respond to several letters to the editor during the last week that made erroneous statements regarding PRDC and the Idaho Transportation Department’s U.S. Highway 95 re-alignment project. Hopefully we can clear up many of these misunderstandings.

In the following discussion we have done our best to provide a factual summary of the draft environmental impact statement.

We share Wayne Olson’s concern for safety. However, we don’t accept responsibility for accidents on the highway. PRDC forced ITD to follow the law that required that they create an EIS. The responsibility is with the laws of our land. We only encouraged following the law. The EIS must consider all factors, propose a wide range of alternatives and select the alternative that best satisfies the “purpose and need” of the project – while observing all laws and regulations. The purpose for this project requires improvement of safety, efficiency and handling of traffic volume. It may take a little longer, but if this process is done well we should get a safe highway. A DEIS usually takes an agency a year or two to perform. It is not our responsibility that ITD took so many years to perform this analysis. Continue reading →

Victoria Seever, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 1/21/13

I reviewed a good chunk of the Highway 95 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the three alternate routes. On paper, it looked to me like one orange and two apples with E2 displacing fewer residences and businesses, a huge consideration in my opinion. Why not go with the Idaho Transportation Department’s preferred E2 route? Answers to my nagging questions may be in the less conspicuous science reports and ITD’s agendas. To learn more, I attended a January 19 forum and field tour. Seeing the actual east route was a mountain of information.

All three routes satisfy safety concerns. We can speak out, repeatedly submit testimony, and change our opinions as needed before public comment ends Feb. 23. I would like to tour the central C3 and west W4 routes. The east route is not looking so good to me now. A few E2 issues follow.

Near and on Paradise Ridge, it was considerably colder, windier and snowier than in town. Freezing fog and drifting snow was woefully neglected in the study. Trucks will be broad-sided by wind adding to road hazards. Distance wise, the east route is about 10 seconds shorter than the Central route? Continue reading →