ITD needs to study tunnel alternatives

In response to Laurie Wadkins' recent letter to the editor stating that tunnel alternative was 'short on details' — it is ITD that needs to complete a detailed study of the tunnel alternative, not me.

Regulations require ITD to pursue practicable alternatives that minimize damage to aquatic environment; a requirement that ends only when a permit is issued.

I've consistently advocated that the next step is for ITD to complete a tunnel feasibility study from which detailed cost estimates and construction methods could be determined. This is not a trivial task nor is it the responsibility of a private citizen to complete.

The tunnel alternative was presented to the ITD Board last July and a request was made for ITD to complete this study. Without even looking at the extensive written materials provided, the proposal was rejected out-of-hand.

Two subsequent letters to the ITD Board and director re-iterating this request went unanswered. ITD District 1 has also been steadfast in their refusal to consider the tunnel.

The problem is that ITD continues to have a legal obligation to review alternatives and has consistently failed to do so. It is for this reason, and others, that the byway remains in a legal limbo. As the project can't possibly be defended on its environmental compliance merits ITD is attempting to make it a popularity contest and play political hardball.

As the many fine, law-abiding, citizens that oppose putting the highway in the creek have the laws on their side, I remain confident that justice will be served and they will prevail.

It is with considerable satisfaction that I support the efforts of NICAN, the Association of Concerned Sandpoint Businesses and others in developing alternatives to the highway that can't ever be built. Better a part of the solution than a part of the problem, as they say.

STEVE POTTER

Sandpoint

Citizens for Sandpoint Tunnel