Corridor Development

[Joel Hamilton <joelh@uidaho.edu>]

Visionaries:

I am posting the following for Jim Nelson, a colleague of mine in the UI Ag
Econ department.  Jim raises some interesting idea that might usefully
broaden the discussion about development in the corridor.

Joel Hamilton

___________________________________________________

Development of Pullman Highway ­ Paradise Creek Corridor 
will be a Constraint to Economic Development in Pullman -- 
Moscow

Development of the current Pullman -- Moscow corridor will 
constrain local economic development and growth rather than 
encourage it as proponents for corridor development would like.  
This will occur, not because proponents for corridor development 
are wrong about the inevitability (and likely desirability) of planned 
development.  Rather it will occur because the current corridor can 
not support the development that will be drawn to the main 
Pullman ­ Moscow traffic route.

The current corridor is severely limited by its narrowness, by the 
existing Bill Chipman Trail, and by Paradise Creek (which 
environmentalists and state and local environmental quality 
agencies will, and should, protect). Pullman and Moscow residents 
need our cities to be connected by a good and safe road with 
substantial space for adjacent commercial development accessed 
by frontage roads.  This can not be accomplished within the 
confines of the current Pullman ­ Moscow corridor.  A Washington 
state proposal for a four-lane road in the corridor has recognized 
this and proposed two lanes along the current road route and two 
more lanes on the canyon edge and rim.

So let’s not constrain thinking about meeting local development and 
transportation needs to the confines of the current corridor.  

Why not build a new link between Pullman and Moscow up on (or 
over) the hills either north or south of the current corridor? Such a 
link could lie north of the airport.  It could lie over the hills just 
south of the current corridor (approximate route of “Old 
Moscow/Pullman Highway”).  Or it might approximate the route of 
Palouse River Drive.  Any of these routes for a “new corridor” 
would have ample room for four lanes of traffic, frontage roads, 
and large commercial lots.

If we had such a new corridor route, the needs of development 
could be well met and the current corridor route could be turned 
into a “parkway” which takes advantage of the natural esthetics of 
Paradise Creek, its valley, and Bill Chipman Trail.  We can have 
“the best of both worlds” with good opportunities for commercial 
development and the potential natural beauty of a scenically 
developed Paradise Creek -- Chipman Trail route.  

Let’s not settle for greatly constrained commercial development and 
loss of the opportunity for a beautiful, limited traffic parkway 
between our cities because we can’t see beyond the current 
situation to the full set of alternatives that are available to us.  

James R. Nelson, Professor
Dept. of Ag. Econ.
  and Rur. Soc.
Univ. of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844--2334
ph 208 885-5217
FAX 208 885-5759
jnelson@uidaho.edu