Proposed tunnel plan won't ease traffic woes

OK, Mr. Potter, you want a tunnel? So may I ask what would be the point to that? Less noise maybe, no eyesore? As you said, the traffic study found that the bypass would meet capacity in 16 years. Wouldn't it be the same for this tunnel idea? Or do you have some plan for a magic tunnel that expands with traffic growth?

I also must ask you, why would you want to try bottlenecking two lanes going into downtown, instead of the one? I know that Highway 95 is in some desperate need of widening. I also know that we have been screaming for this bypass since before I was born. Yet neither has occurred. So, instead of an above-ground bypass you wish to build a tunnel under the lake? As Mr. Ingmire pointed out in his letter, with tunnels come more risk and more money. I personally, don't want to pay for a half-finished nightmare, because something went terribly wrong, and the "tunnel plan" gets tossed out the window mid-way through.

I think that we should just put the bypass in as planned, and everyone can stop with the argument already. This group doesn't want the noise. That group doesn't want to see it. This group over here wants the bypass put through a whole different area. Just stop it.

You know what I don't like, Mr. Potter? Staring down the tail pipe of a tractor-trailer, loaded with pigs, in 90 degree weather, with two screaming kids in my back seat, because it is hot, and smelly, and we have been sitting in the downtown traffic for 45 minutes, trying to run a few errands. That is what I don't want for my town. And yes, I can call it my town, because I was born and raised here.

LEIGH-ANN RASOR

Sandpoint