dave
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, PCEI wrote:
> Vision 20/20:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>