If you were betting a hundred bananas I might be more interested in taking up the bet. Because I’m just a little, homeless, furry monkey – still trying to work on that opposable-thumb thing.

And I believe that you’re a loveable, well-intentioned, though somewhat misdirected, bobtail nag. I’m sure that if left to your own devices you’ll eventually find your way back to the stable.

If I had a choice in what I might become in my next life, it would have to be a gadfly. Until then, I’ll have to settle with taking a little nip now & then, and poking a few ribs (neither of which require a thumb).

Nonetheless, the land use agencies knew exactly what they were doing when they approved these developments and this sort of nonsense has to stop. If the County truly believes that ITD is the hopeless dysfunctional agency you describe, then why in the world would the County rely on that degree of dysfunction for upholding public safety? That’s exrememly poor leadership. Further, that misplaced reliance takes advantage of a troubled agency to accomodate developer goals (be clear, those developer application fees have paid the salaries of Ada County Development Services — that’s more than a little conflicted). George,

I am sad to say that I think the County knew exactly what they could get away with… and as you have worked so hard to establish here, ITD makes a lovely scapegoat. The public is fed up and just ain’t buying it. We want real leadership from the County and not your self-serving excuses. I’ll bet 100 bucks you work for the County. Am I wrong?

You prove the old adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

If, and only if, you want the situation on highway 55 to improve – follow my recommendation to focus your efforts on getting ITD to clean up its act. If you don’t really care about the public’s health, welfare, and safety – continue your shotgun approach to blaming the county and ITD. In my experience, local elected leaders just love to hear that they’re to blame for another agency’s malfeasence & ineptitude – or better yet, spend their resources to fix the state’s problems. While you’re at it, maybe you could get the commissioners to do something about the war in Iraq.

All while the debate about the county’s decision to approve the construction of 685 homes at Avimor, the cities have approved far more homes on far more treacherous stretches of State Highway 55 (otherwise known as Eagle Road). Yet neither Boise, Meridian, or Eagle required the developers of those low-density subdivisions & commercial developments to contribute to any mitigation efforts.

In 2006, there were four fatal collisions on highway 55 (more than four deaths) within the limits of Ada County – none of which occured in the unincorporated portions of the county, or were related to county-approved developments. There’s also been a statistically significant increase in fatal collisions on SH55 over the past two years (a 250-500% increase from previous years). Maybe this is not as much a surprise to those who travel on Eagle Road, as it may be that ITD is the agency that controls access on the roadway.

Oh well, keep up the good work chewing on the local land use agencies – I’m sure at some point the state may take notice. But then again, with all the deaths it’s seen on the highway over the past two years maybe its bureaucrats are on sensory overload.

By refusing to use that authority when it knows a problem exists, the county gets a share of the responsibility when accidents occur.

I wrote “public agency” and not ITD (ACHD, Ada County, or any of the cities) because you’re right – the sentence applies equally to all of them.

It’s not lost on me that the most strident voices speaking out about the county’s responsibility in this situation, just can’t seem to get over their disappointment that the county approved the develoment in the first place. They should stop confusing their loss with the loss experienced by the victims, it’s beneath them and it’s not doing anything to help the situation.

Although this blog prides itself on its slant, look at the situation objectively.

ITD is the only agency that has jurisdiction over the highway – and the existing access point (that Tony Jones correctly stated) from which the construction vehicle entered the roadway, isn’t even in Ada County. This is why the state has such complete and total jurisdiction over the highway – and why it must never be released from its primary responsibility in this matter.

ITD can enforce its rules unilaterally (anywhere along the hundreds of miles of highways in its jurisdiction), whereas Ada County’s authority ends at the countyline and does not extend onto the highway’s right-of-way. Wishing that the county hadn’t approved the development, or trying to prove that the county is culpable for the collision, isn’t going to improve the safety on the roadway.

All I’ve seen indicates that the county required the developer to seek the appropriate approvals from ITD. If the developer is using the highway without the proper approvals, then why is ITD allowing it to do so? And why isn’t ITD publically pointing the finger at Ada County, if it feels that the county has some culpability in the matter?

I used to work for a state agency (not ITD, thank God!), and if there’s any blame to spread around I can guarantee you that a couple of Deputy AG’s would be publicly duking it out right now with the county’s prosecuting attorney. There is no such thing as brothers in arms in such a situation.

ITD, though, appears to have left a strew of conflicting letters on the access & safety issue. And, from all accounts it appears to be fully aware that slow-moving construction vehicles are using its highway as a construction route – yet why is it permitting this without requiring flaggers (even denying the developer’s request to use flaggers, and add a middle turn lane)?

If I didn’t know better, I would think ITD is trying to “punish” the county for its approval of the development – even if it’s the traveling public that is paying the ultimate price.

Clippity, you SHOULD care where you place blame, since establishing liability (i.e., “risk” – either perceived, or actual) is the only real way of getting the leaders of a recalcitrant public agency to move in the right direction. It may not be as pleasant as hoping that they will simply wake up and “do the right thing” – but it is more realistic.

And since highway 55 is completely under the authority of ITD – managing the risk on that roadway rests with ITD. Going after a land use agency for the risky behavior being conducted on a state highway – even if the behavior is being caused by the contractor building a development that the agency approved – isn’t going to change anything at ITD. Nor will it change anything at the county. County leaders know better than anyone else who is responsible for the public’s welfare on the state highway system. They will listen patiently, and respectfully, to the public’s concern about unsafe roads during land use hearings – probably whole-heartedly agree with all the criticism, and if the public’s lucky they will direct their staff to forward those comments to ITD or ACHD, knowing that the county has no control over roadway safety.

I’m not interested in perpetuating a system that may be broken. Nor should anyone.

If you want real, significant, and immediate change – bring this flaming bag of dog poop directly to ITD’s front door and ring the bell. Bringing your roadway complaints to Ada County is like complaining to the postman that your medical bills are too high. He may deliver the bills, but he can’t do a thing about your healthcare situation – if he’s in a friendly mood he may sympathize with your situation, and then delicately tell you that you should take the issue up with your doctor.

Sara, I didn’t say I agreed with ACHD’s assessment about Ustick – but the court did agree that ACHD has sole authority over the roadway, and confirmed its primal role in determining what should be done to protect the traveling public. The court forced Boise to back off. This is not an opinion; it is what happened (BTW, I do not agree with the court).

Treva’s right about Oregon’s roads – this is a direct result of Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries land use law and its transportation & land use planning concurrency. If we could secure the same level of growth management in the Treasure Valley we’d be way better off than we are today. The only effort that could bring this about is the Blueprint for Good Growth, check it out.

http://www.blueprintforgoodgrowth.com/

Also note that the two major contributors to the effort are Ada County and ACHD. ITD even agreed to play ball and signed the intergovernmental agreement. We all just have to make sure that they stick to their word.

In this case, there may or may not be criminal liability. The fact that charges have not been filed tends to make the criminal issue moot.

As for civil liability, things are very different. On one side, you have four orphans, and two dead parents. By my estimation, they could seek damages in excess of $50 million.

On the deep pocket side of the equation you have a $billion corporation and two bottomless pocket state and county agencies.

A cursory look at the record shows Avimor continually acting without proper permits, and ITD and Ada County generally turning a blind eye, or simply rubber stamping Avimor’s activities. On the day of the accident, the truck, without question, was coming from an unauthorized access point and was stopped in the middle of the road in an effort to turn into a access point that could have been constructed to higher standards (such as the one further south).

The automobile driver deserves some of the blame. However, a jury could easily determine that there was contributory negligence on the part of Avimor, ITD, and Ada County for not doing more to prevent accidents such as this.

It doesn’t take much of a shark to smell that sort of blood in the water. And, it’s my guess that most juries would want to help the orphans.

It would be so much easier, for the public, the county, and the state, even for Avimor, if all the agencies did their job, and enforced their own rules and regulations. If it takes a $50 million settlement to remind the Governor, the head of ITD, and three county commissioners to protect their constituents, it will be money well spent.

What it won’t do is bring back the lives of the parents.