To: C.L. “Butch” Otter, Governor of the state of Idaho, Brian Ness, Idaho Transportation Department Director, and Jerry Whitehead, Chairman, Idaho Transportation Board
Idaho Transportation Department: Do Not select the E-2 Alternative Realignment of Highway 95 betw...
For safety, cultural, and environmental reasons, we the undersigned oppose the realignment of U.S. Highway 95 as proposed by the Idaho Transportation Department’s preferred E-2 alternative of the U.S. 95 Thorncreek Road to Moscow Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation (US95ThornCreek.com).
We recognize the need for a straighter, wider, and safer highway, and thus regret that ITD took ten years to bring this study to the public, while apparently doing little to mitigate safety problems on this highway section.
Because the Highway 95 E-2 realignment would traverse higher elevations than the C-3 realignment, travelers can expect more hazardous E-2 driving conditions imposed by wind, fog, precipitation, snow, and ice. Conducted for only five months during part of an unseasonably mild and dry winter, the seriously flawed DEIS weather study undermines ITD claims of increasing highway safety by implementing the E2 alternative. Also, some of the least safe sections of the current highway would remain unimproved as parts of a county road with the E-2 proposal, whereas C-3 would correct these sections of highway.
Well-informed studies attest that construction and use of the E-2 route would threaten the integrity of Paradise Ridge, a treasured cultural and environmental landmark of our area, along with the viability of native Palouse Prairie remnants and the wellbeing of regional flora and fauna.
Safety considerations demand timely improvements of Highway 95. Because the construction costs and lengths of C-3 and E-2 are similar, and E-2 would cause much greater environmental and cultural impacts than C-3, ITD building of the E-2 realignment would be negligent and culpable. We request that ITD consider the C-3 realignment as its preferred alternative for Highway 95 re-routing between Thorncreek Road and Moscow.
We recognize the need for a straighter, wider, and safer highway, and thus regret that ITD took ten years to bring this study to the public, while apparently doing little to mitigate safety problems on this highway section.
Because the Highway 95 E-2 realignment would traverse higher elevations than the C-3 realignment, travelers can expect more hazardous E-2 driving conditions imposed by wind, fog, precipitation, snow, and ice. Conducted for only five months during part of an unseasonably mild and dry winter, the seriously flawed DEIS weather study undermines ITD claims of increasing highway safety by implementing the E2 alternative. Also, some of the least safe sections of the current highway would remain unimproved as parts of a county road with the E-2 proposal, whereas C-3 would correct these sections of highway.
Well-informed studies attest that construction and use of the E-2 route would threaten the integrity of Paradise Ridge, a treasured cultural and environmental landmark of our area, along with the viability of native Palouse Prairie remnants and the wellbeing of regional flora and fauna.
Safety considerations demand timely improvements of Highway 95. Because the construction costs and lengths of C-3 and E-2 are similar, and E-2 would cause much greater environmental and cultural impacts than C-3, ITD building of the E-2 realignment would be negligent and culpable. We request that ITD consider the C-3 realignment as its preferred alternative for Highway 95 re-routing between Thorncreek Road and Moscow.
Why is this important?
ITD plans to re-locate a major highway over a local landmark, Paradise Ridge. This route (E-2) will be more subject to dangerous winter weather, and will put at risk critical patches of the native Palouse Prairie Ecosystem of which there is only 0.1% remaining. Other alternatives will stay off the ridge and do much less environmental damage.