If bypass was a good idea, it would have been built

I've observed the bypass debate with interest recently. Derision of the tunnel proposal is common. It may not be the best option, but to say it's not technically feasible defies reality. Tunnels are put in more challenging locations than Sandpoint. Challenge the idea based on its potential cost and local impact, but challenging its technical feasibility by the untrained is entertaining at best, comical at worst.

Another observation is the tone of letters. Many supporters believe that long-term residence here better qualifies a person to know what's best her. That may be true, but newcomers may have seen and experienced ideas elsewhere that may be useful. Surely broader experience isn't all bad? Many letters are condescending and insulting, implying those who oppose the bypass are selfish, stupid or both. That tone is missing in opponents' letters, which largely focus on issues. Those that resort to insults usually do so because their arguments are weak.

The issue that most concerns me is a two-lane bypass between four-lane sections of road. It seems clear the bypass will soon become a bottleneck, and there appears to be nowhere to expand by upward. (Imagine taking your children to City Beach with a double-decker freeway nearby?) The Army Corps of Engineers is right — rethink.

It's unfortunate this has been debated for 50 years with so little accomplished. Paraphrasing the mayor: "The pyramids were built in less than 50 years." However, if the bypass was such a good idea, it wouldn't take 50 years, would it?

STEVE TEMPLE

Sandpoint