Email to ITD: Merging Threads and the Request for Raw Data

From: Brian Rogers
To: Carrie Ann Hewitt (Idaho Transportation Department), Brett Haney, Ronald McGhie
Cc: Jerry Wilson, Heather McDaniel, Michael Hartz (Idaho Transportation Department); Dan Gookin (City of Coeur d’Alene); Doug O. (Idaho Senate); J. Palmer (Idaho House of Representatives); Dustin Woods (U.S. Department of Transportation)
Date: September 29, 2025
Subject: Re: Rathdrum Prairie Area Transportation Plan Data

This merges the earlier thread: ITD, August 29, the group, September 2, the group, September 10 and ITD, September 11. The attached letters are the Comments on Level 2 Alternatives (December 2024) and the Escalation of Level 2 Alternatives (August 2025).

Merging Threads

Dear Carrie Ann,

I hope you had a great weekend. It looks like the summer is closing out with some cooler weather on the horizon.

I thought it best to merge the email thread together as I am not sure how they became separated.

I have been speaking with community members and even reached out to the CDA Press on the article that was written from one of the in-person meetings for the PEL study. It is concerning how the propagation of misinformation is continuing around this Rathdrum Prairie PEL study. Before this PEL study was initiated, the No Huetter Bypass group was actively involved with State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI), ITD, KMPO, local businesses, and others when defining the need for such a study and the goals to promote a better community, safer roadways, and the ability to scale the population of the area with the least amount of impact to traffic as possible.

Over the course of the PEL study, the No Huetter Bypass group and others have experienced a deliberate removal of ideas which focused on the supporting the original goals. In fact, the PEL study, at this time, appears to be a $3 million cost which is void of value. With the latest public handouts, all but a few ideas that have been presented to the community are what have been on the “drawing boards” for years.

As has been presented in the attached letters to ITD, the lack of looking at new ways of developing roadways and alternative transportation, as recommended by the FHWA, appears to be on the back burner if used at all. In the last email, the following statement was made, and we don’t agree that submitting the documentations and getting a checkbox means that FHWA standards (best practices) and regulations are being followed due to the process in place. The letters reference and quote many FHWA standards, best practices, and other items that are being overlooked if not completely avoided.

From the Attached Email Thread:

In your letter, we noticed that you mention quite a bit about “the lack of the PEL following Federal standards and regulations”. We wanted to assure you that we meet on a regular basis with Sajonara Tipuric from FHWA and she has approved Part 1 of Concurrence Point #3 with no comments – that is currently our draft memo that was sent out. Part 2 of Concurrence Point #3 will detail a “results memo” which will be submitted to FHWA for approval after we’re done with Level 3 screening.

As stated in the letters and in other corrispondence, the NHB group and its members, continue to be met with vast resistance to looking at modern solutions by local goverment entities involved in the PEL. Decisions, which have been made in less than transparent ways, continue to lead to non-modern solutions for supporting the local community. As stated in the below Infographic, the PEL is not focused on broad bush concepts as the NHB group has been told, but perscriptive concepts based on outdated engineering, litteraly brought forward from before 2009. Missing items in traffic anaylisys for grade separation concepts and ‘road diets’ (per FHWA), along with studies from other states does not support the original goals of this PEL study, but rather the original agenda of local goverment entites.

The group has asked, now two times over the last year, for raw data and decision making criteria. The request has not been fullfiled.

It would be great if there was a positive path to transperency and a review of decisions which have been made and which actors have contributed to those decisions. Providing details from the requested letters and members of the community is a priority as well.

Thanks,

Brian Rogers

“Intelligence removes complexity.” - Me

ITD’s reply: ITD Letter: Response to the No Huetter Bypass Group’s Four “Asks”.