[MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

[Ethel MacDonald]

Thank you, Jason, for your explanation for those who question what we're
getting for our $186,000 peer review of 3rd & Russell!  I'm one of those
people who hates to see more $$ go to non-local consultants, but in this
case I spoke out FOR the peer review for exactly the reasons you outline.  A
peer review looked like the only way we would have any compromise on what
the public has asked for and the preferred alternative.  Thanks for your
work on this and also for the links to help us be better informed.  Ethel

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Jason Wiener <JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us>wrote:


>  A couple of notes:

>

>

>

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Jim McGrath

>

>  > I would like to NOT weigh in on the dogs question. J

>

>

>

> Amen. Though I will eventually have to do so, I sure didn't run because I

> wanted to spend time regulating the presence, absence or behavior of small

> animals. I guess the chicken shit should have tipped me off though, huh?

>

>

>

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Jed Taylor

>

>  > And speaking of investing money....  The Council voted on Monday to

> spend $186k of the public's money on a peer review of the Russell & 3rd EIS,

> right?  So what, exactly, are the citizens of Missoula getting for this

> expense?  We already know what transportation engineers (people who love to

> build roads) favor, and we already know that there's considerable public

> sentiment against so much asphalt as well as its effect on the neighborhood

> south of 3rd street.  And we already know that there's a well-considered

> counter-proposal (the 3+ plan) available.  Is this expense simply a CYA

> project to protect the decision-makers from the public fallout that's sure

> to result if the preferred solution in the EIS is actually constructed?  Is

> there a reasonable expectation that the peer review is going to produce a

> recommendation that's different from the EIS?  Will a part of this $186k

> peer review include an analysis of the 3+ plan and a compare-and-contrast of

> the plusses and minuses amongst the current EIS preferred solution, the 3+

> plan, and whatever else the peer review consultancy comes up with?

>

>

>

> > I would appreciate it greatly if someone could explain simply and clearly

> what $186k is buying that Missoula doesn't already have.

>

>

>

> Now this, on the other hand, is exactly why I got involved.

>

>

>

> The purpose of the peer review is to get the enormous volume of comments

> received, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement's analysis, reviewed

> by people with the technical expertise to move the prime consultants and

> Montana Dept of Transportation to a different solution and no commitment to

> the conclusions that have already been drawn. 3+ Plus for Russell has not

> been examined as thoroughly as the alternatives in the DEIS; this peer

> review gives it an equitable review by people who have no stake in

> validating or upending the contents of the DEIS. I'll be riding herd on the

> review at every step to see that people who do have that stake don't capture

> the peer review, bury contrary findings or constrain the questions so only

> their answers can come out. If, at the end, I'm satisfied that a rational

> and open-minded approach that correctly balances the competing values at

> stake is dictating the design, I'll work to convince others of the same and

> get that built. Unless you'd rather put a bond issue on the ballot to build

> 3+ (and finance the transit improvements necessary to make it work) without

> any federal money, or throw your hands up and keep what we've got, the only

> way out of the National Environmental Policy Act process is through it.

>

>

>

> $186,000 is a lot of money. In a $40 million project, however, it is less

> than .5% of the project budget. If even one turn lane drops out of the

> preferred alternative, the study pays for itself in eliminated construction

> costs. But, obviously, many people are looking for something more

> transformational from the peer review. The benefits of that will be

> two-fold: first, an improved design for the road, and second, education for

> MDT about how to conceive of and construct an urban arterial that will

> benefit future projects here and elsewhere.

>

>

>

> If you want more details on what's going to be delivered, the contract that

> passed (attached text omits one amendment from the floor) and its minute

> parsing of project costs is at

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/packets/council/2009/2009-01-12/Referrals/HKMPeerReviewAmend4.pdfand the response to the RFP for the firm selected to do the work is at

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Documents/Public%20Works/Projects/Russell-3rd/Traffic_Engineering_Services_-_Proposals/Kittelson%20&%20Associates/9887_ProposalKittelson.pdf

> .

>

>

>

> Thanks for your interest,

>

> J.

>

>

>

> *******

>

> Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One

>

> 1238 Jackson St.

>

> Missoula, MT 59802

>

> (406) 542-3232

>

> jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But

> posts to this list may be entered into the public record.

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/>.

>

>




-- 
"Rocks in the water do not know the suffering of rocks in the sun."
Haitian proverb, www.GrassrootsOnline.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090130/4eb47d9e/attachment.htm>