ITD's Sand Creek plan is outdated

What was/is the Idaho Department of Transportation thinking? A byway in Sand Creek? In spite of the obvious reason that highways are placed away from water; in spite of the looming loss of precious animal habitat; in spite of the obvious loss to the community of a potential park, a green belt, a sanctuary, even commercial development would be preferable to an ugly, noisy, and dirty three lane freeway. Why?

Is it because the ITD can't face up to the fact that they have squandered $20 million, trying to convince everyone, from the citizens of Sandpoint to the Federal Transportation Department, of the wisdom of their engineering and expertise in moving traffic?

Is it because the ITD has had this plan on the books since 1950, and they are incapable of admitting the Sand Creek route is outdated and also fails to address the connection with east/west traffic.

In 1992, I spoke with ITD district engineer Tom Hanson. I asked why more consideration was not given to a west side bypass. His answer was that the ITD could only forecast 20 years into the future, but he had no doubt, that one day, Highway 95 would relocate to the west of town. The original plan fomented in 1950 is now well over the 20-year forecast. Does anyone see a conflict of statements-perhaps even a conflict of intent?

What matters then, is what do you see for our future? We have a new mayor and a new council taking office in January. Need I say more?

BILL LEWIS

Sandpoint