NEW WEST CONTINUING COVERAGE
More Lolo Pass Megaloads Opponents Emerge
By Steve Bunk, 12-02-10
 |
|
 | |
| All 13 people are named on two petitions to intervene in planned megaloads. The first petition concerns whether ConocoPhillips Company should be allowed to send four giant truckloads of equipment along the highway from the inland port of Lewiston, Idaho, to Billings, Montana. The second petition concerns 207 megaloads that Imperial Oil, principally owned by ExxonMobil, intends to transport from Lewiston to Montana and then to Alberta, Canada. Photo by Flickr user Mitch LeClair. | |
|
The three residents along U.S. Highway 12 in northern Idaho who are involved in legal proceedings to halt proposed megaloads of oil equipment have been joined by 10 more intervenors. All 10 have submitted affidavits concerning the adverse impacts upon their lives they contend would be caused by the transports, which would be so large that they would block other traffic going both ways through the wild and scenic corridor.
Among the new intervenors are Ruth and Jim May, who live on the highway near Kooskia, Idaho, where they own and operate a small bed and breakfast. Ruth May admitted that taking a public stance on the controversial issue is difficult.
“It is a very conservative community, where a different opinion can have serious consequences on your business and even personal relationships. Too many of our neighbors and even our friends tend to assume that those who oppose the megaloads are mostly outsiders: ‘environmentalists and radical liberals.’ We do not want to alienate our friends and neighbors, but this situation is very serious.”
The Mays were in the midst of their high tourism season when the controversy first brewed. “There was a growing sense of shock and disbelief once we began learning more about the oil companies’ vision for Highway 12,” Ruth May recounted. “And that vision, it turns out, is to create a ‘high and wide’ heavy industrial equipment transportation corridor. Now that we understand the facts, it is time for those of us who do not want this to happen to be heard.”
May’s affidavit mentions two instances in the past two years when people were rushed to a hospital from the inn at night. One was her husband, who suffered from a potentially fatal attack of pancreatitis. The other was a guest who had an anyeurism that could have taken her life if her arrival at the hospital had been delayed.
The other new intervenors include an outdoor gear retailer in Moscow, Idaho, two elderly couples who live along the highway and rely on it for medical care, a couple in Grangeville who own an outdoor photography business, and a Nez Perce Tribe member who lives in Pullman, Washington. The original three intervenors all run tourism businesses.
All 13 people are named on two petitions to intervene in planned megaloads. The first petition concerns whether ConocoPhillips Company should be allowed to send four giant truckloads of equipment along the highway from the inland port of Lewiston, Idaho, to Billings, Montana.
A formal trial on that issue has been scheduled for Dec. 8-10. Boise attorney Merlyn Clark, who will preside over the case, has indicated that his decision will come within days after all arguments are heard.
The second petition concerns 207 megaloads that Imperial Oil, principally owned by ExxonMobil, intends to transport from Lewiston to Montana and then to Alberta, Canada. That petition requests a separate, formal hearing on those proposed loads.
“This is about enhancing corporate profits, pure and simple,” May asserted. “Those of us living in the way are simply collateral damage.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Railroads are available for transport of loads--especially those which would require closure of a highway for more than twenty minutes. Few and far between as they have become, they can get almost anything almost anywhere at almost anytime. But free passage on public highway is not a solution for absense of rails.
Maintenance of way is not a gift for private industry.
1. The successful and proven tourist industry in north Idaho brings in approx. 150 million annually. It would be drastically and negatively impacted by turning U.S. Hiway 12 into an INDUSTRIALIZED CORRIDOR for BIG BLACK OIL. The tourism related businesses and livelihoods would be utterly ruined. The peace and quiet and rural life styles of hundreds and hundreds of residents would be trashed.
2. The Lochsa and Middle Fork of the Clearwater are federally designated WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. It would be OBSCENE to ruin the Wild River Corridor to expedite the extra-legal loads carrying foreign made (KOREAN) industrial machinery bound for a foreign country. (Canada) Sacrifcing north Idaho and western Montana (so Big Oil can realize tens of BILLIONS in further profits!) to subsidize the wanton destruction of the boreal forest in Canada is purely and simply CRIMINAL.
3. The Hiway 12 corridor is also a federally designated Historical Route --- namely a NORTHWEST PASSAGE SCENIC BYWAY. It is one of only 27 designated "All American Roads" in our nation.
4. Thousands of appropriately thinking and angry citizens in Idaho and western Montana are fighting this horrible proposed "taking" by Big Oil. Several conservation organizations in Idaho and Montana are working together in concert to fight this battle. North Idaho and western Montana are truly one of the "last best places" left in our Nation. WE the PEOPLE will give this battle every ounce of energy we possess. This is now a NATIONAL ISSUE of utmost importance!
5. Last but not least - - - Mickey Garcia can't reason beyond the end of his nose. Clear thinking he doesn't grasp. Any rational person will instantly dismiss his tripe.
The 207 loads by Imperial/Exxon oil total 414 loads when you count the trucks returning by the same route.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with other questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Adam Rush
Idaho Transportation Department
Office of Communications
Direct Line: 1-208-334-4444
E-mail Address:
#2 "OBSCENE" Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.
#3 "SCENIC BYWAY" There is no law prohibiting commerce and industry travel on scenic byways.
#4 "NATIONAL ISSUE" Of course. You can't limit the use of State and National Highways to only those who you deem politically correct and attempt to demonize users that you don't like.
#5 "Any rational person will instantly dismiss his tripe." You're arguments aren't based on reason, rather its rabble rousing based on emotion and hysteria and doomsday exaggerations without evidence.
If they don't want anything to distract from the beauty of the river, I think we had better stop the rafters "on/in the river".
1.) obeyed?
2.) ignored?
3.) broken?
4.) changed?
That opposition is about wanting to shut down the Alberta tar sands oil extraction. It should be noted that Canada is the leading exporter of crude oil to the US, and a friendly neighbor with whom we ought to be involved in things like this as partners who will find a viable and real solution. So global energy production shut down by any means is the green goal. Who'd a ever thunk?
On a similar note, there is environmental opposition in Southwest Washington by national enviro organizations, to a permit to allow for a coal export facility. The coal would come from Montana or Wyoming, on unit trains, and be exported to China. Low sulfur coal from Thunder Basin. The kind that powers most of Georgia and many states between Atlanta and Wyoming. The issue is that the greenies oppose China burning coal. And shutting them off of our coal (which the US has in abundance) is about saving the Earth. The coal is available due to Oregon making PGE shut down the Boardman plant, source of 60% of PGE's power. 2021 is the date. How that will be replaced is unknown, but probably burning natural gas...from (Oh, my gosh!) Canada. But that might take a pipeline, and all the recently considered pipelines, and power transmission lines in Oregon have been rejected by popular opinion and the just now past upcoming elections. The latest power plant to get an OK in Oregon is one that will burn thinnings from USFS lands in Lake and Klamath counties. No carbon in the air from that? sure.
Pseudo Science and Popular Myth Power Production rule the day. And hey!! Who can argue with the people who have the answers that fit their agenda? I would ask grandchildren to find old Alley Oop cartoons, and maybe some Flintstones, because that is the direction we are headed in THIS country. And that is most likely why all the economic gains are in THOSE countries that have a young, hungry workforce, respect for education, and much less regulated business economies. Their futures have promise, and our future is clouded, at best. Blocking the hauling of equipment to Canada is just a microcosm of the problems we face as zealots have control of either side of the arguments.
I have made prior comments about the proposed NREPA wilderness deal from international border to international border down the spine of the Continental Divide, and how it would hamstring development of viable transportation of goods and services across the US from East to West or vice versa. Once in Wilderness, the land is not going to be developed to allow for pipelines, power lines, roads, rail, and methods and developments not now configured or even known. I saw a final draft of a proposed transmission line from Imperial Valley wind farms to the energy market in San Diego, and the damned thing was more than twice as long as it would be as a straight line. Wilderness, National Forest, USDI-BLM, Indian Rez issues, scenic issues, and myriad other NIMBY issues had the thing gerrymandered across the landscape like an spastic snake. Just another example of design by committee. And that across an area not quite as rugged as the Rockies, and without the same degree of winter weather. No condemnation of public land to site the thing, but plenty of that against private land. The ongoing litigation and regulatory war against using the Lolo for XXXL loads is a precursor to what you will see if there ever is an NREPA wilderness approval. You will have to ask the Chinese if you can use the Panama Canal to move a load from the West coast to the East coast. And how to distribute electricity and other forms of energy is key to that dilemma. You can't move in in gunny sacks or totes. Containerize it.
If we strand those Korean-made behemoths at Lewiston, we can re-establish the basic difference again...
Turnouts for oilfield megaloads yet to be built in Montana
StoryDiscussion
(5) Comments
Stats | Close Commenting
Page: 1 of 1
manybeartracks said on: December 6, 2010, 1:53 pm
ok, ed. that's fine for those loads, and the loads to BILLINGS, MONTANA go thru as planned. glad you agree.
Quote Comment Report Abuse Admin
Delete CommentFeature CommentAdd Moderators Note..
Charley said on: December 6, 2010, 1:26 pm
Wait a minute, didn't some big cheese from Exxon recently say that it was time to get this thing going? C'mon folks, our corporate masters have spoken: get out of the way!
Quote Comment Report Abuse Admin
Delete CommentFeature CommentAdd Moderators Note..
David1 said on: December 6, 2010, 11:48 am
Let's not just talk about THIS project. It's not about just THIS project. It's about the nature of highways 12 & 200, and even I-90, going from Lewiston, ID, to Billings, or points between. Approval of these loads going over MT highways & interstates is approval to make these roads into industrial corridors, which change the nature of them, forever. These companies can afford to find other routes.
Quote Comment Report Abuse Admin
Delete CommentFeature CommentAdd Moderators Note..
dodson said on: December 6, 2010, 11:19 am
The article claims that all overhead lines and utility lines have been moved, When? What is the status of the federal lands over Lolo Pass impacted almost all the way to Missoula? No recent articles have mentioned any aspect of changes over the right-of-way through federal lands. Did the feds already backdoor approval without public notice? These articles need to address all of the issues and lands affected. Idaho is the shortest leg of the trip. Montana has the greatest impact both north and south across two-lane, rural roads. The "journalists" need to do a better job.
Quote Comment Report Abuse Admin
Delete CommentFeature CommentAdd Moderators Note..
ed toggle said on: December 6, 2010, 7:46 am
There are 3 levels of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. The article states that MDT rightfully has determined that an environmental assessment is required for these loads to pass through Montana.
A "categorical exclusion" comes no where near to addressing the project and it's affects on Montana highways and the inconveniences to Montana residents.
Personally, I feel they should go one step higher, and require a full blown EIS, however, an EA will allow public input and legal action by the public to slow this permitting process to a crawl and delay this permit issuing, almost indefinitely. An EA by law must be conducted within a 6 month period, but extensions maybe granted when extenuating circumstances are shown.
Take your loads up to Prince Rupert BC, Canada, Exxon, and jam them across BC on Canadian highways where these loads rightfully belong!!"
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_bb9ad578-010a-11e0-82c0-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments
Hey bearbait you live in Oregon, your not even affected by these loads. Take a look at what actual montanan's have to say about exxon's plans. growing so tired of your "greenies are runing the world tantrums" Always the same out of you bait, just a diffrent thread. You are a corporate slave who participated in very unsustainable logging practices in the Tongass. You have the gall to give advice to states you don't even live in about dealing with corporations.
Your just a tool who is soom anipulated by the anti0green, corporate masters you would'nt know your head from your ass.
Return to main page
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 13 9-11-2010
Constituents:
Two of the major issues facing Latah County and Idaho residents are:
1)the proposed shipment of 208 megaloads of oil refining equipment for Conoco and Exxon over Highway 12, and
2) the proposed Upper Lochsa Exchange.
I'll address both issues in this legislative update. These are both bipartisan issues and I've worked closely with both Rep. Ringo and Senator Schroeder and citizen groups as these issues have come to the forefront.
SHIPMENT OF MEGA LOADS OF OIL REFINING EQUIPMENT OVER HIGHWAY 12
There is increasing concern among citizens of North Central Idaho about the proposed shipment of mega load shipments of oil refining equipment for Conoco and Exxon on Highway 12. Some of these loads will weigh as much as 500,000 lbs. There are major safety, environmental, and highway impact issues that are concerns. To date more than 2,100 citizens have provided comments to Idaho Dept. of Transportation including 1,704 who signed the "Deny Permits" petition specifying why the permits should be denied. Major Issues include:
1. Highway 12 is the only route that can be used. We were told in Moscow by Exxon that Highway 12 was the "only" route. Later investigation clearly demonstrated that shipment via Prince Rupert and via rail was another possibility.
2. Impact on Highway 12 Infrastructure--Research shows that one fully loaded axle on a big truck hauling oil refining equipment is equal to the pavement damage of 10,000 passenger cars. This raises the issue of what the true impact on Highway 12 will be with these loads. Certainly the Idaho taxpayer will be stuck with the bill.
3. Idaho Transportation personnel told me that the $1,000 permit/load will not cover all of ITD's administrative and technical costs of moving the loads. Who pays the difference?--The Idaho Taxpayer.
4. Lack of an Emergency Owner Backup Plan--Exxon personnel said they had no plan to compensate business owners if a major traffic incident occurred. Plans to handle medical and fire emergencies were sketchy at best.
5. No Public Hearings--there is no requirement under Idaho law to hold public hearings. ITD did hold "informational"meetings. It would seem that public meetings should be held when we are faced with over 200 megaloads that present the public with the potential of "extraordinary hazards". The term "extraordinary hazard" means a hazard not commonly associated with conveying or transporting a load or loads upon the highway system and includes any situation where the traveling public's safety or the highway system and related roadways and structures or the highway system's capacity are endangered.
Rep. Ringo and I have written to Gov. Otter about our concerns. Copies of this correspondence were also sent to Idaho's Congressional Delegation.
Rep. Ringo and I just received the following letter from Congressman Walt Minnick.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Tom:
Thank you for sending me a copy of Shirley Ringo's and your letter to Governor Otter on the proposal to use Highway 12 to ship oil refinery equipment to Montana and Canada and for the additional information.
Like you, I believe that there are still many unanswered questions about this proposal, which is why I sent a letter to the Governor and the Idaho Board of Transportation echoing your request for a public hearing and asking for more time to solicit public input on the proposal. As you know, the Governor rejected my request.
Now that Judge Bradbury has revoked the first four permits issued by the the State and asked them to review the proposal again, taking into account the safety and convenience of the public. That decision has been appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. Like you I look forward to the court's final ruling. Should the court reverse Judge Bradbury I will again review what options then exist at the federal level to ensure the public has every opportunity to provide appropriate input.
Again, than you for the letter and information.
Very truly yours,
Walt Minnick
Congressman, ID, 1stCD
http://www.infotrail.com/idaho/Update_4/Update_13/update_13.html
FightingGoliath Editorial
Like most Americans, we Idahoans watched in dismay during the summer of 2010 as Gulf fishermen’s families lose their livelihoods to British Petroleum’s oil gusher. Now, after more thantwo years of out-of-public-view planning among the Idaho Transportation Department, Port of Lewiston and the world’s most profitable corporation, Exxon Mobil, we north central Idahoans could become Big Oil’s next victims.
While securing $40-45 billion annual profits, Exxon Mobil hired South Koreans to build 207 mammoth equipment modules for shipment to Lewiston and, via U.S. Highway 12 and Montana highways, to Alberta, Canada. EM claims that in Idaho they will spend $12.6 million for utility and road modifications and transportation and calls these expenditures “economic activities.” To Exxon Mobil, they must be chump change.
But this is recession-socked Idaho. In north central Idaho, particularly, with its double-digit unemployment, people eek out a modest living. Many own or work at one of more than 150 businesses, Lewiston to Lolo Pass, whose income partly hinges on tourism. Thanks to promotional efforts of community and business leaders, the area’s single growing industry is tourism, an industry that provides almost 5000 north central Idaho jobs and, according to ITD reports, reaps an annual $149 million in revenues. Those revenues contribute significantly to Idaho’s $3 billion tourism industry, ranked in 2008 as Idaho’s 2nd largest. If the rural families of Highway 12 are to hang on to their livelihoods, tourism must be protected.
The U.S.12 corridor is unusually scenic and historical and is a paradise for outdoor recreationists – beach goers, 4-wheeler riders, hikers, snowmachiners, campers, backcountry horsemen, cross-country skiers, hunters, fishers, heritage tourists and many others. For years, the Clearwater River valley has been promoted as a tourism and recreation destination. As a result, the highway was nationally designated as the Northwest Passage Scenic Byway and one of the nation’s 27 All-American Roads, identified as the nation’s #1 recreational motorcycle route (Motorcycle Magazine) and a segment of the Trans-America Bicycle Route, and its corridor is home to both the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce National Historic Trails. The wild country to which the corridor provides access is part of the reason Lewiston was last year ranked 1st and this year 4th in the nation as the best town for sportsmen and women to call home. Three of the valley’s rivers are nationally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. Since 2002, the scenic byway designation alone has brought $2,347,836 to the corridor in the form of federal grants for byway enhancement. In other words, the bottom line shows that the U.S.12 corridor is an exceptional place which the State of Idaho should protect and cherish for its intrinsic qualities and significant contribution to Idaho’s economy.
Instead, very quietly, the State of Idaho, at the urging of the Port of Lewiston and giant oil corporations, has been planning to turn north central Idaho’s river valley highway into a permanent industrial truck route for the shipment of gargantuan loads. Exxon Mobil says it will ship at night when highway traffic is light. That may quell objections to the shipments, until you realize that ….
•thousands of residents and travelers will be sleeping in homes, motels and campgrounds when Big Oil’s bright lights and loud noise roll up the highway. Exxon Mobil alone plans 207 shipments, 5 nights a week, over a period of about 9 months in 2010-‘11.
•people rushing to Orofino and Lewiston emergency rooms in personal vehicles may sit in a traffic delay while an oil corporation shipment crawls towards its next pullout. 85% of Orofino emergency room arrivals come by personal vehicle, and about half of those via U.S.12.
•volunteer emergency personnel who live in the hills surrounding the highway may also be caught in a wait line as they try to reach the fire station or ambulance for quick response, or try to reach a medical emergency, highway accident, or fire.
•local and regular interstate commercial trucks will have a hard time meeting schedules when they, too, sit in wait lines up to six times per night between Missoula and Lewiston.
How many tourists are likely to return for another middle-of-the-night dose of lights and noise? How many businesses do you know – perhaps your own – that count upon the intrinsic qualities of the U.S.12 corridor to continue drawing tourists and recreationists? If U.S.12 becomes known as an industrial mega-load truck route, how many local families would see incomes decline or lose livelihoods? Which river valley communities can afford to lose their piece of the tourism pie?
And which can afford to lose their slice of the real estate cake? Surely the re-characterizing of the “scenic byway” as an “industrial mega-load truck route” won’t enhance river view property values.
For decades ahead gargantuan corporate shipments will ride the U.S.12 roadbed. Wider than 2 lanes, 3 stories tall, 3/4ths the length of a football field, and weighing half-a-million pounds, the shipments will move at 5-20 mph speeds in 3-night sequences to Lolo Pass. Although weight will be distributed over multiple axles, it seems predictable that damage will accrue to the narrow, winding roadbed designed to accommodate cars, pickups, light trucks, and standard commercial semi-trucks of 60-90 feet and up to about 90,000 pounds. In time, taxpayers will likely pay the repair tab and in effect directly subsidize the giant corporations’ transport projects.
Considering that for miles of roadway there are broken shoulders, no shoulders, weak shoulders, or shoulders mere inches wide, with riverbank and rock faces on either side, it also seems likely that one of Big Oil’s giant loads will tip into the river or damage the roadbed or a bridge to the extent that the highway is blocked for hours, days, or weeks. Oil company plans do not explain how such accidents would be remedied. Like BP, the oil companies aiming to use U.S.12 expect Idahoans to think, “It just won’t happen.”
Borg Hendrickson & Linwood Laughy
The Rural People of Highway 12
http://www.FightingGoliath.org
Kooskia, Idaho
http://fightinggoliath.org/Pages/BigOilandLittlePeople.html
The Nez Perce tribe in ID also opposes the mega-load scheme.
Are they along with everyone else who opposes this project "evil greenies?"
If anyone is bad for this country it's folks like bearbait who just go along with anything their coporate masters porpose, unquestioned, lapping at their heels like a dog.
Also, by the way, where is my last comment? Was "uneducated" not politically correct? Should I have said "uniformed" or "ignorant"?
Oil companies are bullies and have only their own interest as priority. The priority is operating at capacity for the least cost regardless of the consequences. If they can sniff out enough ignorant and/or avaricious people they can hornswoggle, wave a pittance of a carrot, give a good ole boy pat on the back, a smile and a wink, they win. Regardless of environmental impact and ignoring the best and reasonable use, ignoring the fact the carrot they wave is a pittance in balance of what is going to be sacrificed because when they can find enough piggish chumps the impostor and swindler wins.
To turn this designated Wild and Scenic River highway into a dirty and destructive permanent (once its done) pipeline for bloated oil companies is not the highest choice for Montanans, Idahoans, Canadians. It would be a travesty for even those who want to push it would soon realize no matter how temporarily their pockets bulged and you can be sure the payment would be stingy and finite that they have been duped and robbed by the oiliest thieves destroying a valuable gift a beautiful privileged byway along beautiful clear rivers, rich and rare. Sunny
Another thing to consider is the stretches of road in MT. in the Bitterroot ,etc. already are dangerous roads to travel due to traffic conditions. this would be a nightmare for a lot of people.
and yup, i'd say ignore the troll.
"Items of Interest (emphases ours unless noted otherwise):
A. The permit states, "The load exceeds the normal capacity of all the bridges on the route...," i.e., U.S.12 MP2.45 - MP174.42.
B. The permit adds Arrow Bridge to Maggie Creek Bridge and Fish Creek Bridge as bridges of particular concern and for which, therefore, ITD is requiring "helper dollies." Note also that as the load crosses Arrow Bridge, the push truck must be unhitched and "not be on the bridge with the load," suggesting the overall weight of the pull truck, trailer, load and push truck would be too great.
C. At the June 29, 2010, Kooskia meeting the issue arose of towing people's vehicles from those turnouts the megaloads will use. As per a video of that meeting, ISP Director Lonnie Richardson said, "We don't have the authority to tow a vehicle for 48 hours," and later added, "48 hours is the law but not always the application." A vehicle must be "deemed abandoned." Here is what he did not say and the permit does say: "Emmert is authorized to barricade the approved turnouts for exclusive use for the wide loads up to 24 hours in advance for each move." There are 43 identified turnouts in Conoco's plan that may be barricaded. Twenty-five are within the Clearwater National Forest and twenty-eight within the Wild and Scenic Rivers corridor.
Note that each of Conoco's 4 shipments will travel over 4 nights from Lewiston to Lolo Pass, with 43 turnouts blocked up to 5 days for each shipment. Note, too, that Conoco's permit could be considered precedent-setting, which suggests that turnouts will also be barricaded for Imperial Oil's 207 planned shipments and Harvest Operation's 63 potential shipments, and any others that travel U.S.12.
D. Throughout the summer, ITD told the public the megaloads would not travel on weekends. Yet the permit says, "Travel is allowed 7 days a week..."
E. The permit says, "Highway traffic shall not be diverted onto an unpaved surface." Yet the Emmert transport plan calls for diverting traffic onto several turnouts that are either completely rock/gravel or contain a 2-8 foot lip of pavement and then gravel. If the permit means what it says, these several turnouts would be eliminated from use, which would, incidentally, lengthen distances between usable turnouts and, thereby, lengthen traffic delay times. By issuing the permit, ITD accepted the plan.
F. The permit says, "Tires of the tractor and trailer shall stay within the fog line... The carrier has identified 5 locations where the load tires will cross the fog line but remain on the paved surface; M.P. 48.5, 48.7, 52.6, 54.3, and 157. These areas have been identified as having a guardrail. The outside tires will not extend closer than 1.0 foot to the face of rail at any time nor will the guardrail be allowed to be moved." With typical road widths of 21-23 feet, axle widths of 18' and 21' 1", and 174 miles of winding road that includes many rock faces, sharp curves, and narrow-to-nonexistent shoulders, as well as guardrails, the impact of the 1.0 foot requirement on travel speeds and hence traffic delay times has yet to be determined, and anyone's ability to monitor at night to see if Emmert meets the fog line and 1.0 foot requirements is questionable.
G. The permit says, "Emmert will furnish 3/4 inch plywood to be laid down in front of the tires as the load progresses should the shoulder show distress..." On U.S.12, shoulder widths outside fog lines for many miles measure 2 - 12 inches with a measuring tape. In numerous places shoulders are visibly sloughing into the river. Questions: How will shoulder distress be spotted at night alongside a towering load 1.0 foot from a guardrail? Once the shoulder is in distress with the load upon it, how will plywood be slid in place? Will plywood sufficiently ensure a distressed shoulder will hold? Once a megaload has distressed a shoulder, will that section of road be usable by anyone?
Items of Interest (emphases ours unless noted otherwise):
A. The permit states, "The load exceeds the normal capacity of all the bridges on the route...," i.e., U.S.12 MP2.45 - MP174.42.
B. The permit adds Arrow Bridge to Maggie Creek Bridge and Fish Creek Bridge as bridges of particular concern and for which, therefore, ITD is requiring "helper dollies." Note also that as the load crosses Arrow Bridge, the push truck must be unhitched and "not be on the bridge with the load," suggesting the overall weight of the pull truck, trailer, load and push truck would be too great.
C. At the June 29, 2010, Kooskia meeting the issue arose of towing people's vehicles from those turnouts the megaloads will use. As per a video of that meeting, ISP Director Lonnie Richardson said, "We don't have the authority to tow a vehicle for 48 hours," and later added, "48 hours is the law but not always the application." A vehicle must be "deemed abandoned." Here is what he did not say and the permit does say: "Emmert is authorized to barricade the approved turnouts for exclusive use for the wide loads up to 24 hours in advance for each move." There are 43 identified turnouts in Conoco's plan that may be barricaded. Twenty-five are within the Clearwater National Forest and twenty-eight within the Wild and Scenic Rivers corridor.
Note that each of Conoco's 4 shipments will travel over 4 nights from Lewiston to Lolo Pass, with 43 turnouts blocked up to 5 days for each shipment. Note, too, that Conoco's permit could be considered precedent-setting, which suggests that turnouts will also be barricaded for Imperial Oil's 207 planned shipments and Harvest Operation's 63 potential shipments, and any others that travel U.S.12.
D. Throughout the summer, ITD told the public the megaloads would not travel on weekends. Yet the permit says, "Travel is allowed 7 days a week..."
E. The permit says, "Highway traffic shall not be diverted onto an unpaved surface." Yet the Emmert transport plan calls for diverting traffic onto several turnouts that are either completely rock/gravel or contain a 2-8 foot lip of pavement and then gravel. If the permit means what it says, these several turnouts would be eliminated from use, which would, incidentally, lengthen distances between usable turnouts and, thereby, lengthen traffic delay times. By issuing the permit, ITD accepted the plan.
F. The permit says, "Tires of the tractor and trailer shall stay within the fog line... The carrier has identified 5 locations where the load tires will cross the fog line but remain on the paved surface; M.P. 48.5, 48.7, 52.6, 54.3, and 157. These areas have been identified as having a guardrail. The outside tires will not extend closer than 1.0 foot to the face of rail at any time nor will the guardrail be allowed to be moved." With typical road widths of 21-23 feet, axle widths of 18' and 21' 1", and 174 miles of winding road that includes many rock faces, sharp curves, and narrow-to-nonexistent shoulders, as well as guardrails, the impact of the 1.0 foot requirement on travel speeds and hence traffic delay times has yet to be determined, and anyone's ability to monitor at night to see if Emmert meets the fog line and 1.0 foot requirements is questionable.
G. The permit says, "Emmert will furnish 3/4 inch plywood to be laid down in front of the tires as the load progresses should the shoulder show distress..." On U.S.12, shoulder widths outside fog lines for many miles measure 2 - 12 inches with a measuring tape. In numerous places shoulders are visibly sloughing into the river. Questions: How will shoulder distress be spotted at night alongside a towering load 1.0 foot from a guardrail? Once the shoulder is in distress with the load upon it, how will plywood be slid in place? Will plywood sufficiently ensure a distressed shoulder will hold? Once a megaload has distressed a shoulder, will that section of road be usable by anyone?"
It is sad to say; but, America's sick, religious, love affair with gutter class capitalism has gone to the point where the business schools teach their vandal grads to actively seek opportunities to push even the most fundamental business costs, like transportation, onto anyone else or any part of the public realm they can get to take them. Once these costs are shifted someplace else they are deemed "external" to the books and can be forgotten, dropping their cost to the bottom line. In this case, as long as the corporations can save one filthy dime by sending the work overseas instead of paying local shops to build this equipment on site, they don't care if it costs the taxpayers millions to repair the roads or if it bankrupts local businesses that depend on these roads or if millions in other peoples' business is lost because the roads aren't usable or even if somebody dies because they can't use the roads. They just don't care; it's "external" to them.
Building this equipment, whether in Montana or Alberta, would have put money into the local economy, created jobs, provided returning vets with training and experience, and helped keep North American industry strong. But, that's not what these corporations are about; they just don't care; it's "external" to them ...and they're confident that their supporters will be too dumb to realize that they are just being played for the poultry-minded fools that they are.
Look, Mickey, this is about the fifth time I have had to explain some very simple concepts to you. You seem to have opinions on just about every topic from statistical analysis to the costing of externalized expenses; but, you don't seem to have any depth of education or intellectual background on any topic. I don't mind spending time to joust with someone who either has a clue or has a consistent position, even if it's idiotic; but, you have neither. Your detractors are correct. You're just the Ketchum Klass Klown, babbling nonsense about everything that comes across your sight.
The stipulation, outlined in an over-legal load permit issued to ConocoPhillips last month, suggests the combined weight of the loads with the extra trucks behind will be too much for the Arrow Bridge east of Lewiston, Idaho, say litigants who oppose the move.
The 1,248-foot bridge was refortified this year in a project that lasted nearly six months.
Borg Hendrickson and husband Linwood Laughy are two of three Idaho residents along Highway 12 near Kooskia who took Idaho and ConocoPhillips to court to stop the shipments. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, they received an electronic copy of the trip permit issued Nov. 12 by the Idaho Transportation Department.
The couple sent copies of the 30-page permit and a list of "items of interest" it contained to media outlets, including the Missoulian, on Monday.
Also on the list:
• Emmert, ConocoPhillips' moving company, can barricade approved turnouts 24 hours in advance of each move.
• The haul will be allowed seven days a week, except for holidays and holiday weekends.
• Sheets of three-quarter-inch plywood will be laid in front of the tires of a load "should the shoulder show distress."
• The permit says highway traffic can't be diverted onto unpaved surfaces, but a number of turnouts in the transport plan aren't paved.
Hendrickson, Laughy and a third litigant, Peter Grubb, own businesses along Highway 12 they claim will suffer if the big loads are allowed through. They filed suit in mid-August in Idaho district court after the permits were first issued, claiming ITD violated its own regulations in approving them.
The case eventually reached the Idaho Supreme Court, where it was placed back in the hands of ITD. A hearing in front of an independent hearing officer is slated for Wednesday and Thursday at the Grove Hotel in Boise to decide the case. It begins at 9 a.m. each day.
ConocoPhillips has also applied for, but hasn't received, permits for the loads in Montana. As in Idaho, they would move only at night. Over a two-week period, they would enter the state at Lolo Pass, go through Missoula on Reserve Street, pass up the Clark Fork and Little Blackfoot rivers to MacDonald Pass and follow a circuitous route through Helena and central Montana to Billings.
Montana has said the loads can be permitted only if they can get through Idaho legally. Opponents have indicated they'll carry the fight to Montana as well.
***
Another oil giant, ExxonMobil, wants to move 207 oversized loads along the same Idaho route into Montana, up the Blackfoot River to Rogers Pass and, eventually, to Alberta, Canada. Neither state has approved those moves yet, even though the four ConocoPhillips loads and 34 Exxon modules are stockpiled at the Port of Lewiston.
A third company, Korean National Oil Corp.'s Harvest Operations, has broached a megaload project along the Clearwater and Lochsa rivers as well.
The Idaho permit states that each of the four ConocoPhillips loads "exceeds the normal capacity of all the bridges on the route ... "
Hendrickson and Laughy say a state official at a June hearing in Kooskia said vehicles can park at turnouts for up to 48 hours before they're deemed abandoned and eligible for towing.
"Here is what he did not say and the permit does say: ‘Emmert is authorized to barricade the approved turnouts for exclusive use for the wide loads up to 24 hours in advance for each move,' " Hendrickson and Laughy wrote Monday.
"There are 43 identified turnouts in Conoco's plan that may be barricaded. Twenty-five are within the Clearwater National Forest and 28 within the Wild and Scenic Rivers corridor."
They went on to note that, since it will take four nights for each of Conoco's four shipments to pass from Lewiston to Lolo Pass, it could mean blockage by Emmert of 43 turnouts up to five days for each shipment.
"Note, too, that Conoco's permit could be considered precedent-setting, which suggests that turnouts will also be barricaded for Imperial Oil's 207 planned shipments and Harvest Operation's 63 potential shipments, and any others that travel U.S. 12," they said.
Idaho transportation officials said they would have no comment on the issues raised by Laughy and Hendrickson before Tuesday."
Reporter Kim Briggeman can be reached at 523-5266 or at .
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d946e146-01bb-11e0-a350-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.lmtribune.com/blogs/2010/12/08/our-business/details-surface-about-mammoet-accident/
Lack of impact on the public is a joke! Already the corridor has already been altered with turnouts, people who travel at night (as I have often done) will be adversely affected at exactly a time they expect free-flowing traffic, and those who travel during the day will be treated to unscenic views of mega-loads parked on the roadside obscuring many of the wild and scenic characteristics.
I'm interested in what alternative routes there are. With the profits Conoco and Exxon are making, they can afford to extend the travel time!
Mickey, you should be ashamed of yourself - wasting peoples' time with blather!
They were allowed by transportation agencies to creep in under cover with an assurance that once at the dock they wouldn't be turned back regardless of any protest by the public or future environmental studies. This is another oil company sneak attack preying on the avarice of elected officials. How can this be allowed, a virtual "oil pipe line" through a beautiful scenic river by way. Where are peoples heads, haven't they learned what happens when mega oil finds a hole in the dike?
Those spewing reasons favoring this big oil claim have no foresight or they expect to be paid for their dupability and their disregard for the degradation of bridges, river banks, public transportation and safety not to mention the priceless experience of driving a peaceful wild and scenic river road. This scenic highway is an invaluable gift to Montanans.
This proposed mega load permit is disgusting and disastrous.
There is NO unified plan to either expand or increase the transportation infrastructure through the Rockies to meet the needs and expectations of a changing world. All we have seen to this point is the NREPA proposal which essentially would shut down any new east-west transportation corridors for highways, expanded rail, pipelines, or the sorely needed electrical gridding to serve renewable energies where they can be produced.
Stopping this oversize load issue is doable. But the question remains as to how we do create a route for oversize loads or do we need to create a route for oversize loads. It is not a new issue. Long ago people were hauling or fabricating large equipment in the New West in remote areas. Piece by piece by pack string, or river boat, or wagon, the impossible was made to happen. Our need to create a self sufficient energy program cannot happen if you can't get the equipment for there to here.
In fact, just think about how America is going to create a renewable, clean, available energy creation and distribution system lacking the rare earths we deigned not to mine in this country, the rare earths that China has over 95% of the world's supply of and is now embargoing and raising tariffs on. How do we find those, here, and how do we safely mine them, if we can't get to them??? If we can't refine the ores? If we can't manufacture the technology??
Our country is capable and in need of the jobs to fabricate that kind of machinery. Importing it, and then subsidizing the transportation of that machinery across the country, is insane, really. Only the arrogance of some Milo Minderbinder can fathom goodness in such a proposal. A much expanded conversation across the country needs to happen to solve the problem this oversize haul has created for local people, and the general population. Government is not being as responsive, from the "git go", and only reacts when things go henshit. There has to be a better way.
It is more closelay allied to colonial questions of th 18th and 19th centuries--when powerful nations forced less powerful nations to acquiesce to pressures of international necessities.
I am reminded of events preceding the Boxer Rebellion.
This a real predicament and I'm hoping the environment wins this one. s