Fwd: Moscow-Pullman Highway Expansion

["bill london" <bill_london@hotmail.com>]

Read on for specifics on the Corridor roadway proposals...BL


>From: Bryan Burke <wheelz@turbonet.com>
>To: Bill London <bill_london@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Moscow-Pullman Highway Expansion
>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:29:05 -0700
>
>Dear Bill;
>
>Our corridor is faced with another threat, a highway expansion project.  It
>could be bad depending on how the details work out.
>
>As I am sure you know, the ordinance to allow development in the
>Moscow-Pullman corridor was passed by the Whitman County Commission a few
>months ago.  Nevertheless, our efforts appear to have helped.  Despite
>opposition from developers, the rule to maintain at least 50% green space
>was kept in the ordinance as well as a few other safe guards.  Policy
>issues that will affect development in the corridor continue to be debated.
>  These include the Washington State DOT's plans to expand the highway into
>a four lane, as this email addresses.  There is nothing necessarily wrong
>with expanding the highway.  Whether it is overall a good or bad project
>depends on the details.
>
>THE PRIMARY ACTION TO TAKE
>
>Please place a phone call, email, or letter to the Washington State
>Department of Transportation (the address is below) and tell them (1) to
>limit the amount of frontage roads to the bear minimum needed to allow
>existing land owners access to their property and (2) to not pave the
>frontage roads because developers should have to pay for that.  (3) Where
>new right of way is being bought, the state should keep all of it in its
>possession (not turn it over the county) except where it is directly
>associate with the frontage roads.  Tell the DOT that if they do not follow
>these three pieces of advice, in the long term it may hinder the primary
>goals of the highway expansion project to increase safety and speed of
>travel on the highway as discussed below.  Also, tell the DOT to (4) place
>bridges over the bicycle path for the frontage road to cross over.
>
>THE PLANS FOR THE FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY AND FRONTAGE ROADS.
>
>Please see the map of the *preliminary* plans on my web site <
>http://lbfc.palouse.net/corridor_p-m.jpg >.  As the map shows, there will
>be a four lane highway built. The existing two lanes would be the east
>bound lanes and the two west bound lanes would be put in to the North.
>Also, the number of exits and entrances to the highway will be reduced to
>four intersections that will connect with frontage roads.  In at least one
>or two of these intersections, there would likely be stop lights at some
>time in the future.  Controlled access to the four lane would start at the
>west airport road intersection and run to the east airport road
>intersection.
>
>DISRUPTION TO THE CREEK BOTTOM
>
>The direct, immediate, physical disruption to the creek and surrounding
>habitat may be minimal.  Also, by law, for every acre of flood plain that
>is displaced by development, three more acres must be created elsewhere.
>The map indicates the tentative location of a new wetlands site-however
>nothing is for sure at this point.
>
>However, some individuals have expressed the concerned that wetlands cannot
>ever truly be replaced.  In addition development (more roads and commercial
>property) along the creek may make the habitat unsuitable to some wildlife
>simply because of the increase proximity of the two.
>
>THE FRONTAGE ROADS
>
>By law, new highway projects cannot take away from people access (or the
>quality of access) to their property, unless the state offers to purchases
>the land.  This is why the frontage roads are being built parallel to the
>four lane-to give existing land owners access to their property.  The state
>does not want to keep the frontage roads because they would have to
>maintain them, so the state will turn them over the to the county.  Because
>gravel roads are more expensive to maintain (says the WSDOT), the county
>may be reluctant to take possession unless they are paved.  This paving and
>other improvements that the state may make to the frontage roads will
>likely encourage commercial development.
>
>RIGHT-OF-WAYS
>
>As the map shows, the state would purchase new right of ways along the
>highway and frontage roads because the project will disrupt some people's
>access to and use of their property.  This would have a positive impact on
>the creek because it would get some of the cattle out of it.  However, if
>the state gives too much of this new right-a-way to the county along with
>the frontage roads, it is possible that the county could just sell it back
>to private land owners at some other time for development or grazing.
>
>The existence of the frontage roads will undoubtedly be an encouragement to
>commercial development, urban sprawl, and more automobile use.  To a large
>degree there is not much that can be done about this.  Even stopping the
>four lane project would not help because then there would not be any
>controlled access on and off the highway and many more intersections and
>frontage roads could spring up.  However, only building new frontage roads
>to the minimal extent necessary to accommodate existing land owners can
>help restrain new development and urban sprawl.
>
>PROBLEMS WITH THE PLANS
>
>Although there are likely others, these are some of the problems with the
>plans:
>
>1) 	More frontage roads means more opportunities for development in the
>corridor (as businesses cannot locate directly on the four lane).  The more
>businesses that locate in the corridor means more habitat loss, urban
>sprawl, and automobile use between the Moscow and Pullman.
>
>2)  Unless bridges are built, increased traffic on frontage roads that
>cross the trail will mean more risks from cars to bicyclists, joggers,
>walkers, and roller bladers.
>
>3)  In many places it appears that a frontage road will be right next to
>the creek and/or the trail and result in habitat destruction and detract
>for the recreational value of the creek.  However, it should be noted that
>the DOT engineer expressed the desire to (were possible) maintain grade
>separation between the frontage road and the Bill-Chipman Trail.  This
>means the frontage road would be above the trail and creek in some places,
>which could potentially minimize at least some of the habitat loss
>depending on how and where it is done.  I realize that the trail and creek
>are not marked on the map, so it is hard to see exactly where the frontage
>roads and creek come close to each other.  (This omission of the trail and
>creek is perhaps a strong indication of the actual priorities of the DOT).
>
>4)  From what I have heard from the DOT they are planning for a large
>grassy median in the new four lane that will eat up even more farm land.
>Are there alternatives?
>
>5)  If significant development does occur, the increased traffic on the
>frontage roads could necessitate intersections and stoplights that would
>slow down traffic on the four lane and create time delays for the Wheatland
>Express and students that are traveling between WSU and U of I for classes,
>as well as other daily commuters that are.  I find this very ironic because
>the goals of the project as defined by the DOT are for quicker and safer
>transportation between the two cities.
>
>THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE, IN ROUGH ORDER OF IMPORTANCE
>
>  1)  Please make a phone call to the Washington DOT in Spokane and express
>your concerns and suggestions.  The time to make our voices heard is now
>while important decisions are still being made.  Talking to the DOT staff
>over the phone is by far the most persuasive way to communicate your
>concerns.  However if you cannot place a call, you can still send an email
>or write a letter.
>
>Larry Larson, project supervisor.
>WSDOT
>2714 N. Mayfair St.
>Spokane, WA  99202
>Phone:  509-324-6205
>larsolr@wsdot.wa.gov
>
>2)  It would be helpful if a few individuals biked or walked the trail and
>drew the trail and creek on the map.  That way in the future we can be more
>informed about the impact that the frontage roads will have on the creek
>and trail.  We need to identify important habitat areas that may be
>destroyed.
>
>3)  Also, we need to identify if the DOT is planning frontage roads that
>are not necessary for existing businesses and residences to access their
>property.  Also, farm land does not need a paved road for access.
>
>4)  Forward a copy of the plans to the press and encourage coverage of the
>issue.
>
>5)  Write letters to the editor.
>
>Moscow-Pullman Daily News <letters@moscow.com>
>Daily Evergreen <online@dailyevergreen.com>
>Lewiston Morning Daily Tribune <letters@lmtribune.com>
>
>
>
>Bryan E. Burke
>
>NW 605 Fisk, #9b
>Pullman, WA 99163
>wheelz@turbonet.com
>(509)332-4260 voice
>(305)768-8567 fax
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com