[Vision2020] ITD's proposed hwy 95 reroute comment period ends this Saturday, 2/23

[Garrett Clevenger]

Veeper peepers,

The comment period for ITD's DEIS for the proposed reroute of highway 95 ends February 23 (in 2 days).

If you're like me, you've waited until the very end to think about what you want to write (procrastinated).

If you want to add your comments, you can email or contact ITD at:

Idaho Transportation Department Headquarters
P.O. Box 7129
Boise, ID 83707-1129
Fax (208)334-8563
comments at itd.idaho.gov

More info about the project can be found at:

http://us95thorncreek.com/

Also, at the very least, please consider adding your name to this petition:

http://signon.org/sign/idaho-transportation?source=c.url&r_by=5978043

Below are my comments I plan to submit, perhaps with some modification as provided by feedback from the list.

Thanks for your consideration!


Dear Idaho Department of Transportation decision makers,

I am writing in regards to the DEIS for Highway 95, the reroute proposed to take place south of Moscow. Please except these comments and include them in the official record.

I have been following this issue since ITD first proposed rerouting Highway 95 up Paradise Ridge. I attended some of the informational meetings held by ITD back then and submitted comments at that time. 

I am glad that ITD proposed alternative routes in response to the opposition, as it seems only reasonable to have other routes to consider and to compare the Paradise Ridge route with.

I am really hoping ITD will consult with Washington State to figure out how to make the highway more user-friendly for all residents on the Palouse. It makes sense to me to find a way to tie the highway in with traffic that is traveling to and from our neighbor state, which means rerouting the highway to the west. That way, truck and other traffic not intending to stop in Moscow would be able to bypass Moscow instead of causing congestion in the city as currently happens and will continue to happen if E2 is built. Washington may even share some of the expense which seems fair since some of the traffic that utilizes Highway 95 is Washington bound. Why make that traffic drive through Moscow, create congestion and potential accidents with pedestrians, and cause wear-and-tear on Moscow's roads?

Idaho has a backlog of road maintenance needs as explained by Director Brian Ness to the Idaho legislature's Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee recently.  To almost triple the amount of roads Idaho will need to maintain with both snow removal and repair for this particular stretch is not fiscally responsible.

Other more reasonable approaches would be to make the current route a 2-lane, 1-way stretch and build a new 2-lane, 1-way stretch flowing in the opposite direction on the western proposed route, or make the C3 route the prefered choice, as paving Paradise Ridge is unacceptable for numerous reasons well-articulated by others.

In regards to E2, a primary concern is the number of car encounters that will happen with large wildlife, as numerous large animals utilize Paradise Ridge. Not only will the highway interrupt and displace their natural forage range, but these animals pose a serious danger for travelers not only in terms of potential direct impacts but also with drivers swerving to avoid hitting them. Since this will be a high-speed stretch of highway, reaction times are minimized and force of impacts are maximized. Couple that with potentially more fog, snow and/or icy roads that probably occur at higher elevations and you are creating a recipe for repeat disasters if the E2 route is built.

Since Paradise Ridge is a lot steeper than the lower elevations, it seems a lot more work is going to be needed in order to make the terrain level enough to put in a wide, 4-lane highway. Since there is less soil and thus more exposed and shallower rock, that will require more blasting in order to break up the substrate. All that seems like it will be more costly than if the route chosen were less steep, such as where the central and western route could be.

I am also concerned that ITD's preferred alternative is partly based on faulty or incomplete data. For example, the weather data was taken from one season which was a mild season compared to average snowfall and temperature. Weather data should have been taken over several seasons in order to gain a better picture.

Also, from what I understand, the number of displaced businesses and homes on the C3 route has been over-estimated in ITD's report.

That misinformation should be evaluated and updated before a route is chosen.

Lastly, the current route will still be used and remain unsafe if a new 4-lane highway is built. It seems better to modify the current route, solve the safety issues, save money and protect Paradise Ridge.

There is no reason for ITD to create controversy by paving Paradise Ridge when better alternatives are available. The highway probably would have already been built by now if ITD had chosen the more logical central or western route in the first place.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Garrett Clevenger
Moscow, ID

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130221/acac6605/attachment-0001.html>