Joann Muneta, Moscow
The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 2/20/13
It is not true all of those objecting to the proposed E-2 alignment for U.S. Highway 95 to go over the western shoulder of Paradise Ridge are residents of that area. People from throughout the city and county are writing letters and signing petitions to the Idaho Transportation Department asking that the central alignment (C-3) be chosen. I myself live near East City Park, yet I want to preserve and protect the Paradise Ridge area that is one of our area’s significant and treasured natural landmarks.
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.
Weather conditions were not thoroughly studied and no climate studies were done for C-3. The ITD itself reports “the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, The Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prefer the C-3 Alternative to the E-2 Alternative.”
The data reporting the number of businesses and residents to be displaced by C-3 are now being questioned. And, of course, if E-2 is chosen, the current Highway 95 will not be straightened or widened and will become the responsibility of Latah County. Alignment E-2 will increase noise and light pollution for Moscow residents.
These are only a few of the reasons that would lead to preferring C-3 instead of E-2. There are only a few days left to contact the ITD with your opinions and to sign an online petition obtained at Paradise-Ridge-Defense Coalition website link www.paradise-ridge-defense.org. Comments must be received by February 23.