Don’t Blame Paradise Ridge Defenders

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

C-3 Is Superior Reroute for U.S. Highway 95

Al Poplawski

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