Opinion

Cadman reply missed its mark

As a spin document, Ms. Hansen's [Nov. 9] letter is pretty good, but not

a masterpiece. She says the Snoqualmie Valley Record "... veered off course

by casually dismissing real environmental and safety issues involving the

use of Exit 38," and then she proceeds to veer off course herself. Let's take

a look at some of her comments.

Everyone agrees: Exit 34 is already used by trucks getting to/from one

of the biggest and busiest truck stops in the state, and this is before the

schools on the corner of Middlefork Road and Southeast 140th Street are

constructed in the next couple of years. But Ms. Hansen doesn't mention what

will happen when the project adds (by their own numbers) 900 gravel truck

trips per day.

She even says, "Using Exit 34, gravel trucks would pass by no

homes, no schools, no parks, no rivers and no trailheads."

She fails to mention that some of the traffic from the truck stop

will avoid the congestion caused by the increased traffic and use

Southeast 140th Street and North Bend Way to get to I-90 via Exit 32. Maybe

she doesn't care about the other traffic because it isn't comprised of the

gravel trucks. Or maybe she doesn't care about the intermingling of the

other traffic with the school buses carrying small children to and from the

new school. While Ms. Hansen may be correct that the gravel trucks might

not go by the homes, schools, etc., does she have any comments about how

the gravel truck traffic will affect the traffic flow in the neighborhood?

She also plays the environmental card by saying that using Exit 38

will require enlargement of the Fire Training Academy Road, and, "Even

with the best construction practices, some impact to streams, forestlands and

the river is unavoidable." Gosh, maybe I misread the DEIS and Cadman's

Web site, but aren't we always being assured that no accidents, spills,

accidental piercing of the aquifer or other potential calamities will happen

because Cadman has such expertise in these areas?

It seems a contradiction that they can assure us they can operate

on Grouse Ridge for 25 years without a mishap, but overseeing the

enlargement of an existing road can't be done without significant impact on the

ecology? Hmm, maybe I am a skeptic.

Candidly, the Grouse Ridge gravel operation will have a negative

impact on safety, and it will have a negative impact on the environment.

Cadman does not want to work through Exit 38 because it will cost them

more money, it will force more restrictions on them and they are vulnerable

to comments from a study they had Hart & Crowser perform a couple of

years ago.

However, there is an alternative. Cadman can choose not to operate

a gravel pit on Grouse Ridge. Then there is no problem with either Exit 34

or Exit 38, there is no negative impact on the environment and, finally,

there is no safety problem.

Ken Hall

North Bend

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Aug 27 edition online now. Browse the archives.