guestop_debaun_4-8_bypassTEXTBVNE(TM)ooeB*o=aoemBINCAOe Bypass opponents lament the loss of the "soul of the waterfront" when the Sand Creek bypass is completed.
In reality, this "soul" is a mud flat for some seven months of the year that is, in large part, bounded by a weed-infested bum jungle which is crisscrossed by dirt roads and bisected by a high-decibel, earth-shaking transcontinental railroad.
Anyone who thinks that this area is likely to regain its pre-railroad serenity any time within the next century is out of touch with reality. The more likely scenario is that train traffic will increase and that additional trackage will be added in the future.
Some of those in opposition to the bypass appear to have arrived rather recently in the area. Perhaps this relatively short period of time has not afforded them the opportunity to follow one of those malodorous, excrement spewing, cattle trucks through town on a hot summer day. Maybe they have not been engulfed in the diesel fumes emitted by the procession of trucks as they idle at Sandpoint's numerous stoplights.
They may not have even had the occasion to play bumper cars with the big rigs as they attempt to negotiate many of Sandpoint's truck-unfriendly twists and turns. If they have not had these experiences, then I suggest that they spend some quality time plying the streets of downtown Sandpoint this coming summer. Maybe then they will better appreciate why diverting even a portion of the through-town traffic (particularly the truck traffic) justifies whatever incremental increase in highway noise might be associated with the bypass.
I may have missed it, but I am not aware of any viable alternative that has been offered by the naysayers. The alternative routes that have been proposed and evaluated entail worse environmental impacts, prohibitive costs, and/or widespread disruption of private property. Any economically feasible through-town route that would significantly improve traffic flow on U.S 95 would necessitate the confiscation of relatively large amounts of private property and would continue to divide the community by impeding the movement of east-west vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
When critical factors such as funding, timing, property rights issues, and overall adverse impacts on the environment are taken into consideration, the Sand Creek bypass represents the best solution to an ever-worsening downtown traffic situation.
The majority of the citizens living in this area who have voted on this issue favor this approach for dealing with the problem. The anti-bypassers claim that things have changed since the original public opinion poll was taken. Indeed they have. The traffic situation has gotten much worse, and the necessity of dealing with it is more urgent than ever.
As others have suggested, the community would be better served if the bypass bashers would focus their energies on optimizing the aesthetic and recreational values of the project. The bypass has been in the planning stages for some forty years. Let's hope that those in the minority, who are opposed to this community-supported and long-overdue project, are not so self-serving and near-sighted as to attempt to seriously interfere with its completion.
JACK DeBAUN
SandpointddJ>ooe@D5:Caroline Lobsinger letterdddSNP Editorial Editor6ooeBA,xCaroline Lobsinger letterdddSnpEditorial6ooeB_,xCaroline Lobsinger letterdddSnpEditorialddJSORTAeJAUDTAe”A”BC”|'(R)