The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) proposes to rebuild 5.8 miles of MT 203 Eastside Highway, roughly from Hidden Valley Road to the southern reaches of Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. The following is an open letter to Shane Stack, Preconstruction Engineer on the project:
Dear Mr. Stack et al.,
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Eastside Highway expansion plans at the public meeting held in Florence on October 7. In light of a number of ideas and concerns raised at that meeting, I would like to specifically draw your attention to the following:
1. I don’t know anyone at all in the Bitterroot who wants to leave. Folks who live along Eastside Highway live in a rural area by choice, and people do not choose a rural lifestyle in order to live along a freeway. How many residents who live and drive on Eastside Highway actually want a sprawling, three-lane highway with a bike path? If we wanted to live in a booming suburb, we’d move nearer a city. If anyone prefers to drive on a big road, we’ve already got Highway 93.
2. Deer crossing the highway represent a huge safety hazard for drivers. Folks who drive on Eastside Highway on a regular basis can tell you that hitting a deer on the highway is a matter of when, not if. If there’s highway money to burn, please spend it on fencing and other measures to keep the wildlife off the road, not on a third lane.
3. The center lane you propose would eliminate all legal passing zones for six miles. Would you want to be the person on the way to an appointment who is stuck for six miles behind a tractor, or a tourist moseying along at 40mph?
I think you would find very little opposition in the community to the following objectives for Eastside Highway:
A. Keep deer off the highway
B. Add turn lanes at high-traffic and high-risk intersections
C. Broaden the shoulders
The proposed six-mile-long center lane is a Procrustean Bed that will result in unnecessary destruction and seizure of personal property, an unsightly “freeway”, and endless frustration for those who regularly drive the highway.
A number of families who live along the highway are rightfully upset that the proposed three-lane highway and bike path would result in the elimination of their front yards and massive devaluation of their homes. Is the center lane really necessary?
The widespread support for a multi-use path is understandable, and my family and I would likely make use of such a path, but if the larger, underlying problems with the highway expansion plans are not addressed, the multi-use path may end up seeming like a band-aid slapped on a compound fracture.
Road maintenance is good. Shoving big-city solutions onto rural communities is not.
Noah Duguid
Stevensville