I attended the Moscow Public Works Committee meeting this morning. The big
item on the agenda was a presentation by a team from the Idaho
Transportation Department (lead by District Engineer Jim Carpenter), urging
the Committee to reccommend that the Council pass a resolution endorsing
the South Couplet Project as presented to the Committee, TONIGHT.
This project is on the FAST TRACK: 10 hours between presentation to the
Committee and the citizens, 'til adoption of a resolution. This morning
was the first that I have been allowed to see the plans drafted by ITD, so
I am having a little trouble coming to a conclusion. I can only give you
my fragmentary impressions.
Negative Impressions:
1. What's the big hurry? Can't we take even ONE WEEK to distribute
drawings of the project around the community? I know that there would be
some good ideas come from people seeing what is in store for the heart of
our community. It sounded very suspicious that ITD was urging the
committee to aprove, now. Tell the council to approve, now. Don't stop to
think. Don't show these plans to anyone. Just approve it. Quick. Not a
moment to lose. The new ITD Board and all. Political reasons.
2. Any discussion of bicycle or pedestrian facilities were dismissed
as "details" that would be worked out later. The main features of the
project - motor traffic lanes - are what are on the table now. The main
thing is to approve the project as presented. Then, the City and the
University and ITD will work out the "details".
3. The motivation for this project is to eliminate the 90 degree turns
of the South Couplet, in order to move truck through town more efficiently
(read: faster). How do chip trucks moving at 50 miles per hour downtown
enhance a sense of community?
4. ITD representatives were very vague and cagey about whether the
existing bridge on Main St over Paradise Creek would be torn down or remain
standing. I'm still confused. Yes or no? Will it be up or down?
5. If the bridge is torn down, there will no longer be a direct
pedestrian route from South Main to downtown.
6. ITD is proposing a 10 foot wide bi-directional bike path on the
east side of the new stretch of HWY 95. This is simply unacceptable. We
do not need a facility that encourages cyclists to travel against traffic.
Positive Impressions:
1. The stretch of existing Main St from HWY 8 to Sweet Ave would be
abondoned back to the City. This will be an ecellent addition to the
Linear Park system.
2. The old bridge, if it is left in place, would be a great asset for
the Linear Park.
3. Linda Pall is really pushing for a green strip between the
sidewalks and the street.
In general:
A few years ago, the Mayor's South Couplet Committee came up with a plan.
They did let the puplic look at those plans before they were endorsed by
resolution of the City Council.
Those plans were thrown out by ITD because they were too expensive.
The new plans, the real plans, have been developed by ITD. Today's Public
Works Committee meeting was the first public exposure of these plans. This
proceedure is hardly public participation.
This plan will be endorsed by resolution by the City Council this evening,
probably by unanimous vote. If you have any concerns about the project you
might have an opportunity to voice your concerns.
Fritz