Class 10 - 17 April 2006
Bringing It All Together
The primary purpose of our discussion today was to set a path for
the preparation of a report.
Last week – public
input process (a brief summary of some of the discussion from last week)
Rosemary Curtin interviewed a cross section of stakeholders, how
they felt the public process should work. This was input to ITD’s
process of public input. She didn’t use cookie cutter public process,
but really tried to learn from the stakeholders about what they felt was
important to do.
The ring road could
be even bigger than project than other projects that have been
considered before. The magnitude is perceived as large.
Is there a process
gain over time by going through the process in which all stakeholders
are involved?
How do we effect the
environment in the long term?
If we build the same
road as planned in the first place, what is the benefit of the process
Where do we go
from here - some discussion
Phil: What are the jurisdictional issues; what are the mechanisms
for preserving the corridors?
Aaron: Identifying
the corridor is not important. There are so many other things that need
to be done first. But the most important thing on the table is to
describe the corridor. Important to make the move to preserve the
corridor.
JD: All of the
jurisdictional issues, land ownership issues, interstate issues.
Phil: Not just
city/county, but also across the stateline.
Aaron: Can’t we keep
the project in Idaho only and avoid the interstate issues? [Are these
design issues that we can accommodate through another process?]
JD: Frame a
recommendation for determining feasibility, still means looking at some
of the issues that others have already looking at.
Nick: What are the
characteristics of the ring road, what should it do for us: take traffic
out of Moscow into the periphery.
JD: Need to have
background and context, including original goals of the ring road. Also
need to consider the social science issues that should be considered as
reasons for engaging in public process.
Bill: Opportunities
for social issues to address: congestion, providing more open space,
providing a bike corridor, land use issues, getting outside of existing
development.
Walter: There are 15
landowners that are in the path of the proposed ring road. Three
comments were made about ring road in the Thorn Creek/US 95 public
hearing process.
Bill: Part of the
report should be alternative public awareness process in order to move
this forward: minimal fast track to move this along, or longer term
educational awareness of the community on the issues. What are the
options for public input process? How do you move something forward,
with the appropriate public input?
Possible outline
The group agreed that preparing one report that would be made to the
city council or the transportation commission, or that might serve as
the basis for a community workshop, was the most important priority in
bringing together what we've discussed and learned during the semester.
Following is an outline along with seminar participants who will work
together to prepare each section. A one page outline for each
section will be due for next Monday and each will be discussed and
reviewed then.
- Context:
Moscow’s Future: Transportation on the Edge of Town: Who Decides our
Future.
- The concept:
justification and need, transportation service and operations.
(Dixon, Kyte, Steed)
- Jurisdictional
issues and corridor preservation issues. (Cook, Hollenhorst, Steed)
- Environmental
issues: social and biophysical issues. (Sanyal, Wulfhorst, Anderson,
Strout)
- Public input
process issues/alternatives. (McLaughlin)
- Next steps: how
to move ahead.
|
