Megaloads need special on-ramp - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Megaloads need special on-ramp

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:00 am

COEUR d'ALENE - A proposal to build a temporary Interstate 90 on-ramp to allow three megaloads of oil field equipment bound for Canada to pass through Coeur d'Alene is drawing concerns.

The Idaho Transportation Department will accept public comment on the plan of Mammoet USA South, Inc., on Thursday from 4 to 7 p.m. at its office at 600 W. Prairie Ave.

ITD representatives will present information on the on-ramp, traffic control plans for the shipments and "brief" closures of the freeway at the on-ramp location near Higgens Point east of Coeur d'Alene, according to an ITD news release.

The shipments, which would come from Lewiston along U.S. 95, could pass through as early as January and would likely close I-90 for about 10 minutes for each shipment, ITD officials said.

"The on-ramp, which is on public right-of-way, will have widening work done to allow the shipments to use it," the news release states.

Mammoet USA South proposes to move three shipments east on the interstate. Each load is 472 feet long, 27 feet wide, 16 feet tall and 1.6 million pounds.

A route being considered bypasses Veterans Memorial Bridge along the freeway east of Coeur d'Alene. Shipments would exit I-90 at the Sherman Avenue interchange, travel 5.5 miles along east Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive, pass under the freeway overpass west of Higgens Point and re-enter I-90 at the temporary on-ramp.

Adrienne Cronebaugh, executive director of the Coeur d'Alene-based Kootenai Environmental Alliance, said there are concerns about the proposal. She said she was "amazed" at the size of the loads.

"I am concerned about the potential damages to the Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive road bed a 1.6 million-pound load might leave behind for the taxpayers to restore," Cronebaugh said. "These shipments are not super tall, but they are very long and very heavy. These are one of the biggest shipments I've seen.

"A larger concern is with the temporary on-ramp that will be constructed from the Higgens Point parking lot. The only thing that will make that on-ramp temporary are moveable concrete barriers. We don't want to see Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive become the thoroughfare for megaload shipments for years to come."

Cronebaugh believes Mammoet USA South should build its equipment where it's needed rather than transport it in megaloads through Idaho. She said the proposal has created a buzz of interest, so she expects others to join KEA in commenting during Thursday's meeting. She's also seeking input from homeowners along east Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive who would be affected.

"The shipments are supposed to be at night, but other shipments have taken more time than what was originally planned," she said. "Since these could be moved during the winter, I'd expect similar issues around here. It could cause unintended problems for residents."

ITD hasn't issued a permit for the megaloads and is awaiting more-detailed plans for the transport project through Coeur d'Alene.

The temporary on-ramp would involve removing concrete center barriers on the freeway. The on-ramp would travel a short distance in the westbound lanes before transitioning into the eastbound lanes.

Megaloads heading from the Northwest to the Canadian oil sands have drawn protests and lawsuits in recent years. In some cases, protesters, including those in Coeur d'Alene and east of Lewiston, have been arrested.

Idaho Transportation Department officials couldn't be reached for further comment on Tuesday.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

26 comments:

  • spudman1 posted at 8:00 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    Are you really so misinformed as to believe they can do this without permits? You don't understand that the state charges for permits to allow this? World wide supply of oil determines cost to the consumer.

    Yes, that means all of us are buying from the same pool of resources., Just say no? Your really not sure why but after all it's feelings and emotions that count. Facts and reality have no concerns in your world. Somehow it just doesn't feel 'right?" A great reason to be against getting equipment to a job site. No wonder the Country is in such bad shape. It's a good thing your vote is meaningless.

     
  • Why Not posted at 2:50 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    Nothing more I like than a good old challenge there spuddy, so here are a couple of NON PARTISAN links for you to digest big fella:

    Eight year average - http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

    More importantly, you really should understand what your gas cost is when pegged to inflation, here’s a good site Spudman - http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp

    BTW, I don't watch Matthews, but for the sake of entertainment I get a good laugh from Stewart or even Hannutty now and then. I like to read and I read lots of interesting things as long as they don't contain the America waste of, left right pollutics.

     
  • chouli posted at 1:47 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    chouli Posts: 1254

    This has nothing to do with the price of our gas locally. This oil will be refined and sold most likely to China...or whoever bids the most. It won't help us one bit. May even hurt our gas prices.

    My beef is why should we spend any energy or tax $$ helping a private for profit corporation to get their equipment to Canada?? Let the corporation build it on site or figure it out without ANY inconvenience to Idaho. There are always risks and dangers to allowing something like this...road damage, liability, environmental damage if something goes wrong...and inconvenience to OUR citizens.

    I don't need to study this to just say NO. I vote NO. Not even once. (which would become MORE)
    I don't want the cost, the inconvenience, the risk, the liability, and I don't even like the principal of using tar sands to get oil... JSUT SAY NO...

     
  • spudman1 posted at 12:09 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    I have been traveling back and forth to California for the past ten years and around the Country. I am in the real world and that's why I know you can provide no credible source for your inane assertions on fuel prices.
    Pure propaganda from a leftist with an agenda. Your the one sitting in a snowbank getting your news from Jon Stewart and Chris Mathews.

     
  • Why Not posted at 11:53 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    Sticks and stones... turn off your Fox and rejoin the real world

     
  • spudman1 posted at 10:47 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    A liar ,misinformed and not too bright. Is that good enough for you?

     
  • Why Not posted at 10:06 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    Hey spud you calling me an liar? Maybe you need to broaden your scope of information sources son, because the record all time national average for unleaded was on, 15-July 2008, $4.122. Through September 2013, the highest national average for unleaded was on, 11-May 2011, $3.965. Do I need to explain who was President at during those dates?

    I'm no fan of Obama, but I do enjoy chewing on facts.

     
  • spudman1 posted at 8:06 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    The price of fuel under Bush spiked to around four bucks a gallon July of his last year in office. Unleaded average across the Country was 1.87 when he left office. The reason folks like you have no credibility is because of out right deceptions like you have put forth.
    We have lived under continued high fuel prices since the day Obama entered office. Combined with inflation and reckless spending and fake reporting of the Cola index leaving out fuel and food.

    You people never seem to notice? Local res is spot on with his comment. It's all about the agenda from those that have sunk this Country to it's knee's. Common sense is completely absent.

     
  • Why Not posted at 5:37 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    Then explain why gas was four bucks under Bush II. The value of the dollar is less and oil has gone up because you can't print more oil. Cut the left-right nonsense LR, they both stink.

    Yes, we use oil products in about everything sold at Wall Mart and we burn it for heat cooking and transportation. It's dirty and it's a finite resource, there are alternatives. The problem is that people look at ethanol, wind and solar and they think that's all there is, sure if political footballs is all you are concerned with. There are better cleaner alternatives already here (LED) and coming; and they won't disrupt the status quo.
    .

     
  • local res posted at 11:01 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1157

    Today where were you when the hydros wanted to load the same section of road ways with private vehicles and loud gas driven vehicles?

     
  • local res posted at 10:58 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1157

    Common sense use to be common in this area. I will try to make it simple, the larger the load the more axle (tires) that spread the load out across the road surface. Look at the average Semi truck the more tires the heaver the load.

    Admit it Adrienne Cronebaugh, executive director of the Coeur d' Alene-based Kootenai Environmental Alliance that it is not really the size of the load that bothers you, rather it is the destination and finale usage that makes you angry.

     
  • local res posted at 10:54 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    local res Posts: 1157

    Actually the price of gas is due to the Obama policies that have destroyed the value of the dollar. If the dollar was work as much as 2007 dollars we would be paying around $1.80 a gallon or less. By the way how do you heat your house cook your food and power you car? All of these activities use a natural resource such as oil or coal.

     
  • AnonymousCda posted at 6:54 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    AnonymousCda Posts: 240

    I'm against the tarsands Mega Loads. TarSands is the dirtiest oil in the World. With Fracking oil right next to it. I'm also against the 3 Coal 1 Oil terminals in Washington State. In which North Idaho will take the risk of Oil/Coal trains going through every day. With Tarsands from Alberta an also Fracking Oil from North Dakota entering/exiting North Idaho with 40 Oil cars going through, Maybe Rathdrum, Jr High, Brown Elementary?? I could be wrong. So prove me wrong.

    The Tarsands in Alberta is right on one of the largest fresh water deltas in the World.

    In the Future its going to be cost of Water not for Gasoline. How much will you pay to drink freshwater?

    Gasoline prices is manipulated like a communist control and command of the markets. Raise the Fed Reserve interest rates tomorrow. An then will find the true costs of Gasoline and Oil per barrel. Increasing people in poverty and increasing inequality. Like I said before I may be wrong, but prove me wrong.
    Cleptocracy: Ruled by Thieves.

     
  • spudman1 posted at 5:12 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    Sorry JMO I'm in the sunshine for the winter. You'll have to carry on without me fixing the world.

    Replacing oil won't happen with any of the worlds current technology's. Don't fly in airplanes, ride in trains or drive an automobile if your dead set against oil. The list of oil based products is too long to mention. Take off your shoes for starters and everything you wear. You can start hunting whales again for lamp oil and wearing animal skins while you tend the garden on your knee's. It must be a tough life when your so dumb.

     
  • Why Not posted at 4:48 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    JMO, I just hope that all this relatively cheap oil doesn't once again impede the delivery of a serious alternative contender to king oil. I'm not a global warming advocate, but oil and oil biproducts cause so much environmental damage and is linked to so many health issues.

     
  • jmowreader posted at 3:18 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    jmowreader Posts: 988

    Why Not: I wonder, really I do, why the people pushing shale - not the owners of the shale fields, but private citizens - aren't looking at coal-to-liquid technology. This was invented by the Germans in the 1930s and it works fine to produce any fuel you can get out of oil. Bonus point: you wouldn't have to dispose of megatons of oily sand.

    Spudman: ITD is the same bunch of yahoos who wanted to up the weight limit on trucks statewide to match what they're testing in South Idaho. You can run really high weight in South Idaho because it's board flat there. In North Idaho we have mountains and the higher weight limits won't work here. Some days I think ITD hasn't ever been north of Lewiston...and this is one of those days. Seriously, tho: go down to the ramp that takes you from US 95 northbound to Northwest Boulevard and tell me how you're gonna get a 500-foot trailer around that corner. Between Sunnyside Road and Bennett Bay Inn will be entertaining too.

     
  • Why Not posted at 2:17 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    Of course supply and demand plays a roll in the price of oil. It's a free market, albeit a very manipulated market. Numerous articles have been written over the past ten years about the need for North American oil production and how cheap oil made it unprofitable. Shale oil requires a price point of between $50 and $70 to be profitable, technology and independent drillers are pushing the shale price point down. I suppose that's why the Canadians are investing so much in Alberta, improve the technology and they can make tar sand more competitive, good grief they have the stuff coming out of their ears. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/for-how-long-has-shale-delayed-peak-oil

     
  • spudman1 posted at 1:01 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    Ok, you deny supply and demand have any effect on the worldwide price of oil?

     
  • Why Not posted at 12:48 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Why Not Posts: 3677

    spuds, that Canadian oil ain't cheap and it ain't clean, in fact the tar sand oil is built around the cost of oil staying above $80 pbl.

     
  • spudman1 posted at 11:07 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    Of course yes, lets do everything we can to block the flow of cheap oil production by the Canadians. We love the 100.00 a barrel price and can't wait for the next increase in gas prices due to some world event.
    Also, The morons at IDT don't know what the bright bulbs like jmowreader do. That's why they have a job and this nitwit has the time to complain about everything under the sun. Sure that makes sense?

     
  • jmowreader posted at 9:28 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    jmowreader Posts: 988

    The load in question is almost 500 feet long. I know about steerable trailer axles, but how do they plan to get this from 95 onto Northwest Blvd, around the Chamber of Commerce building, from Sherman onto CDA Lake Drive, or through the hairpin turns on CDA Lake Drive? If they ran it straight up 95 how would they get it around that 90 degree turn right after the river.

    These megaloads are Exhibit A in the case we don't have an overreaching federal government...if we did, maybe they could have told these turkeys "you build this equipment in sections no more than 100 feet long and assemble it on site."

     
  • spudman1 posted at 8:32 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    spudman1 Posts: 433

    IDT has no property on lakeshore drive. They only have an easement. The city has the same easement. There is nothing to buy or sell.

     
  • Humanist posted at 8:29 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Humanist Posts: 2933

    Who would pay for the temporary on-ramp?

     
  • Ghost Writer posted at 7:43 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Ghost Writer Posts: 46

    If Im reading this right, From Lewiston (95) to Sherman (90) exit, back onto the 90 build temporary ramp move concrete barriers ? at what cost ? to whom? Send it on 95 straight to Canada let them deal with it there. Heck were still waiting to hear who will own Lake CDA Drive and that impact.

     
  • denofrage posted at 6:24 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    denofrage Posts: 90

    If they are going to hire local companies and use local workers to build this ramp, move the barriers, and direct traffic. Then I'm for it. Any damages to the roadbed will be paid by thier insurance. So local workers can fix it. Its a win for everyone.

     
  • today posted at 5:19 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    today Posts: 43

    KEA - sue these fools and force them to go elsewhere. If you do and are successful I will join your organization.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks