Sandpoint traffic proposals are genuine, byway neutral

Re: Mr. Copley's letter claiming that my proposals for improving traffic flow in Sandpoint are "disingenuous," and a "Trojan Horse."

First, every one of my traffic proposals are "byway" neutral. Whether a highway is built in Sand Creek or not, solutions for Sandpoint are not part of that proposal. On the other hand, there are many simple, cost effective, and just plain common sense solutions for traffic flow issues in and around Sandpoint that are immediately achievable. These proposals are very much genuine and realistic. They are opportunities to truly relieve traffic congestion in and through Sandpoint now, not "potentially" four or five years from now.

Regarding "Trojan Horses." Let me quote from the "byway" project Record of Decision and Environmental Impact Statement: "The purpose of the project is not to address the traffic in Sandpoint;" and "There is no provision in the proposed action to make improvements to the traffic in Sandpoint." It also states that only 17 percent of the traffic in Sandpoint is just going through Sandpoint without stopping. Now, without any factual basis, we are bombarded with undocumented claims of "significant alleviation of traffic congestion in Sandpoint" as the purpose of the project. Hmmmm.

The project documents describe a structure with long open spans and minimal visual and environmental impacts, not thousands of feet of high walls and acres of filling into Sand Creek. The fills that reduce the width of Sand Creek by over a third are described as "shoreline extensions." An increase from less than an acre in the original plans to over 7 acres of fills into Sand Creek is described as a "reduction in impacts." We have heard a litany of "All the land and environmental permits are in final stages" repeated for over two years now, with neither yet obtained.

Who is selling whom a Trojan Horse?

PIERRE BORDENAVE

Sandpoint