Tunnel is a practical alternative to byway

I'm writing in response to Leigh-Ann Rasor's letter to the editor in opposition to the tunnel proposal. First, about the tunnel reducing noise and not being an eyesore — she's got that part just right about our motivations.

I can't follow her reasoning as to why the tunnel would cause some sort of bottleneck — it is proposed to be four lanes with generous shoulders and would, lo and behold, bypass downtown. There are no reasons to think a tunnel is either more expensive or risky then the Sand Creek alignment when one has never been studied. All indications are that the tunnel is a practicable alternative to highway in Sand Creek.

Putting a highway in Sand Creek is not without its own significant risks. With the soils engineers predicting six to 12 inches of settlement during construction it is no wonder BNSF has not been quick to sign on to the program.

A tunnel has lower settlement potential then the highway up Sand Creek as, by design, it removes as much weight in soil as it put back in the concrete shell.

By deferring consideration for the tunnel until after the new year, we've given ITD the opportunity to demonstrate they can resolve the permitting, BNSF property acquisition and lawsuit issues.

If they can't then it could be we'll need to discuss other options if Ms. Rasnor indeed wants to avoid being stuck in downtown traffic for 45 minutes with two screaming kids in her car.

STEVE POTTER

Sandpoint

Citizens for the

Sandpoint Tunnel