Why can't UP look the other way on trail?

Union Pacific want to remove a bike path build without permission. They have the right to do so and Mr. Sletager should not have built it to start with.

Maybe his thought was “forgiveness is easier to obtain that permission?” I don’t know, but I do know the path is very helpful to many people that have little to do with Mr. Sletager’s housing development. It provides a safe way for walkers and bikers to cross Highway 2 and I am sure this could save a life.

If you remember, a lady has been killed at that highway crossing and we don’t want death! Mr. Jim Larson (of Union Pacific) states that ownership is not “reversionary,” and the public has “misconception” about UP’s ability to convey this property. He also states that with an increase in the coming years of traffic on rails, Union Pacific needs to keep its options open.

Since this part under the bridge connects with the North Idaho Bikeways bike path, nothing could be gained by Union Pacific to lay rail in this section under the bridge. Also, the North Idaho Bikeway came into being because Union Pacific gave up something, or conveyed something, for this to happen! Could not this happen for the path in question? Union Pacific is NEVER going to use this short section of right of way and should come to terms with the North Idaho Bikeways and allow this to be an extension of the present existing bike path.

This has to do with safety and not with some benefit Mr. Sletager could obtain do to or for his housing development. Of course there could be complications with the Idaho Department of Transportation with the rebuilding of the bridge, but until then I ask UP to at least “look the other way” and possible save a life while doing so. This certainly would put Union Pacific in a much better light with the citizens and visitors of our area.

PETER J. SMITH III

Sandpoint