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 →

David Hall, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, 1/18/13

Regarding Wayne Olson’s letter, Time for U.S. 95 Realignment (Letters, January 16, 2013):

Members of the Paradise Ridge Defense Coalition (PRDC) do not believe that the proposed eastern alignment is the safest option.  One reason for doing the environmental impact study (besides that it is required by law) was to include a good analysis of the relative safety of each proposed alignment.  It is apparent to most residents that the weather is “worse” in winter up on the ridge than it is along the current alignment – there is often more snow and fog up on the shoulder of the ridge, which makes driving more hazardous.

The highway could have been completed years ago if the Idaho Transportation Department had upgraded the highway along the present alignment, just as they did for the section to the south.  And they could have put measures into place to make the existing road safer in the interim.  They chose to do neither but instead insist on moving the highway into an arguably less-safe location.  Part of their rationale for the eastern route is that it is the shortest, but it is a mere 0.09 of a mile shorter than the central alignment – a few hundred feet.

It is misguided to lay blame on PRDC and other folks who are as concerned about the public safety as is everyone else.

Anyone who wishes to learn more about this issue is invited to attend a forum at noon on Saturday at the 1912 Center in Moscow.

Al Poplawsky, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 12/29/12

The release of the draft environmental impact statement for relocation of U.S. Highway 95 south of Moscow is imminent, and the preferred alternative is the same, old, problematic, eastern route over the shoulder of Paradise Ridge.

A recent editorial in this paper (Daily News, December 13) erroneously referred to the first document for this project as an environmental impact statement (EIS).  However, it was actually an environmental assessment (EA) – a much less thorough study and document.  The law is clear that an EIS is required for the relocation of a highway to a divided highway.  The attempt of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to push this project through without an EIS was a blatant attempt at violation of the law.

Environmentalists have been blamed for the deaths and injuries that have occurred on this stretch of Highway 95 since the favorable ruling in their lawsuit.  However, we were just trying to uphold the law.  We have laws for a reason.  Those who criticize us for our efforts are advocating for the breaking of our laws.  If the majority of us think a law should be changed, then maybe it should be.  But we should not advocate for the breaking of laws that are on the books. Continue reading →

David Hall, Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 12/22/12

The original report that the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) produced was an environmental assessment (EA), not an improperly done draft environmental impact statement (EIS) as stated in the Daily News’ editorial on December 13.  An EA is a much less rigorous review than an EIS, which the court ordered.

Safety is the largest issue here and the supposed reason for the realignment/upgrade.  It has not been shown to my satisfaction that the eastern alignment would be safer than, or even as safe as, the other alignment options.  There is quite a bit of testimony that there is increased snow, fog, and other hazardous weather and driving conditions on the shoulder of Paradise Ridge compared to the existing route.  In addition, the eastern alignment might require deer/elk/moose fencing to attempt to keep game off the highway.

With safety of the driving public of primary importance, why has the Idaho Transportation Department done nothing in the past ten years to improve safety along the existing HIghway 95 route?  I am sure there are things that ITD could have done – reducing the speed limits, placing warning signs, and probably some localized realignments.  It makes so much more sense to fix the existing route than to plow through a new area. Continue reading →

Murf Raquet (for the editorial board), Moscow

The Moscow-Pullman Daily News 12/13/12

Realignment, reroute, fix, or upgrade, whatever term you prefer, it looks as if a treacherous portion of U.S. Highway 95 is finally getting the attention it has needed for a long time.

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has issued a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for its selection of a new route for Highway 95 between Thorn Creek Road and south Moscow.  ITD has picked the E2 route to the east of Highway 95 on Paradise Ridge.

More than a decade ago, Idaho officials had planned to build a straighter and safer 6.5-mile stretch of the state’s major north-south road.  They had proposed numerous options to the west and east of the curvy part and one that improved the existing section.

An alternative that rerouted the highway over parts of Paradise Ridge was then also favored by the state.  Residents on the ridge and others objected, saying the road would have a disastrous effect on portions of Palouse prairie that manage to exist in patches on the ridge.

A lawsuit was filed in 2003 saying the state did not properly conduct a DEIS for the route.  (Some folks even tried to save the beleaguered prairie by tying it to the giant Palouse earthworm, but the grassroots movement gained little traction.) Continue reading →