Project is too costly for ITD to continue

Ah, the byway issue. Out of curiosity, I looked to see how Webster defines the word "byway." It is, and I quote, "a little traveled side road." Say what?

 I understand the $98 million project is now up to $144 million. That's nearly $70 million/mile! Am I the only taxpayer that thinks it's time to pull the plug? Anyone want to bet against the final cost doubling? It's up 47 percent already. Am I wrong, or haven't the experts been telling us the alternatives were too costly? I guess ITD doesn't see $70 million/mile as too costly. The old adage that says the degree to which a project is screwed up is directly proportional to the number of government experts involved is surely validated.

Supporters of the "byway" that call Sand Creek an unsightly mud hole, and U.S. 95 a goat trail, use melodramatic hyperbole to justify the Sand Creek route as the only intelligent choice. This is nothing but arrogance. I believe it was Einstein who said the only difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits. From my perch, Einstein must have known the experts at ITD personally. However, we taxpayers, in my humble opinion, will fit the stupid definition if we allow this project to continue. If we taxpayers are going to be fleeced for upwards of $200 million, let's at least have a real bypass, outside the city … not a "byway."

STEVE BRIXEN

Sandpoint