[Vision2020] Re routing of US95; Two Views
Moscow Cares
moscowcares at moscow.com
Wed Jan 30 05:45:49 PST 2013
Courtesy of today's (January 30, 2013) Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
-------------------------------------
Half truths and innuendo
I for one have about had enough of the half truths and innuendo put out by the Paradise Ridge Coalition, concerning U.S. Highway 95 from Moscow to Thorncreek.
They profess how much better the C-3 route would be instead of the E-2.
As a lifelong resident of the Palouse and someone who has hauled grain and other commodities through this area for more than 30 years, I believe E-2 is the best and safest route available.
Contrary to what the coalition espouses, the only place I have seen fog and ice on Reisenauer Hill is in the low areas. Not farther up the ridge.
As far as the weather study is concerned, the year the study was done is of no concern, the data is dictated by average precipitation which stays pretty steady from year to year. The variable is whether it comes in the form of more snow or rain.
I have also worked in the construction of roads. Building on the C-3 route will only perpetuate the problems we currently have with accidents and the number of deaths occurring each year.
The only logical choice is the E-2 route. Then we can all enjoy the beauty of the ridge more. If the coalition truly values human life over their questionable rhetoric, they will cease and desist from further interference and let ITD get on with the business of building a safer roadway that will truly benefit the residents of the Palouse.
Don Meyer, Moscow
--------------------
Another view on US 95
On Jan. 21, I got a tour of Highway 95's other alignment options, the central and west routes. This is not an easy call. Whichever route, it is essential all ecological mitigations are thoroughly taken and maintained. Social and economic issues remain a huge consideration for individual rights and land use. It's not as simple as buying out someone who just plops down somewhere else equitably located and available.
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.
To the eye, the East and Central routes run not far apart for much of the distance. How much real difference, in long term effect, does that suggest? Both routes put wildlife at variable risk.
Does losing farmland predict overtaking habitat later to replace it? Microclimates between the east route and town differ.
How much difference is there between the east and central routes affecting safety?
There was a good view where the south end of the west route departs and heads west beyond our sight. It seems the less favored choice because of cost, increased distance and losing prime farmland.
Nationwide, roads and housing developments are paving over prime cropland to our detriment. Marginal land is falling to human encroachment or pressed into crop development with poorer yields. Biodiversity and habitat is critical on every level in one way or another.
Ten to 15 years of discussion and still there's a hard choice ahead of us. I'm still puzzling this out. I encourage others to do the same. It's an important decision.
Victoria Seever, Moscow
-------------------------------------
Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
- John Lennon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130130/76bb82d3/attachment.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list