Westside route would be environmentally harmful

I would like to respond to “flush with benefits” (guest opinion, Feb. 19) of a westside bypass for Sandpoint's traffic congestion.

Creating an “alternative route” actually doubles the bypass length and does not place “all highways in a ‘corridor.' ”

The benefit of having a “second bridge” is moot because we already have two bridges. According to the late Fred Kennedy, builder of both existing bridges, the current walking bridge just “needs a new top” with a cantilevered walk/bike path.

The current benefits of the westside route being undeveloped and unpolluted will be lost. The westside route will become an expansion of Sagle, with traffic signals like Highway 95 from Hayden to Coeur d'Alene.

The “better uses” of land along Sand Creek will be condos for seasonal, millionaires, members of gated communities, exclusive golf courses, etc.

For aesthetic benefits, compare driving the current bridge with its grand entry to our lake, beach and a quaint town, to the westside route, of driving through Sagle, with traffic signals and two railroads next to the highway.

For economic and environmental benefits, compare the costs of two new miles of the Sand Creek Byway to about 14 miles of bypass and new bridge.

Good idea. “Flush, with its benefits” the western bypass route that damages wetlands and sloughs, pollutes more than 600 new acres, adds more 200 acres of new pavement, does serious economic damage and erodes our rural setting.

LLOYD WALLACE

Hope