Re: Corridor Development

["JS M" <jbiggs50@hotmail.com>]

In July, when the Whitman County Commissioners were considering adopting the 
re-zoning for the corridor, a proposal was floated by the County Prosecutor 
to include the exact same areas discussed here.  The recommendation was 
denied because it was politically unpalatable.  But, a parkway is a fabulous 
idea!  There are grant monies available for "greenways", primarily from the 
Trust for Public Land.  (Grant monies are also available for development of 
trails throughout the Palouse.)  Mr. Nelson has a heck of a good idea.  How 
about a regional park, or a regional recreation corridor, or a just a nice 
grassy ribbon of picnic areas?  How about a vision?
jm


>From: Joel Hamilton <joelh@uidaho.edu>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>CC: "James Nelson" <jnelson@uidaho.edu>
>Subject: Corridor Development
>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:32:01 -0800
>
>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
>
>

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