No headline

Back to the bridge for a moment. According to Sen. Michael Baumgartner (Washington, Spokane) in a guest column ad for BNSF, I quote “what is good for Washington is good for the entire Northwest.” Huh. Really? Does the bridge proposal include the two other bridges needed to increase traffic through Sandpoint? Not sure, but they will need one over the entrance to the marina and one over the road to City Beach. Otherwise they will still need to stack up the trains. This actually may make it worse as the train/s that now wait on land, could end up waiting over water as well.

Since North Idaho (Bonner County, Sandpoint) mostly has the timber industry served partially by rail at the moment, (with UP doing the lion share of that and does not normally use that route) how could it possibly make Sandpoint a “global “partner in trade? Sounds good, but really, global? Partner? And the environment, I can’t wait for the EIS to appear.

Unless BNSF makes it two tracks from the east side of the river all the way to the switch just north of the station house, they are still going to have a bottleneck. Or maybe they intend to force the river crossing and then go after the other two bridges down the road, perhaps when Sandpoint is friendlier to BNSF.

Well, as Will Rogers might have said, This here can, has a lot of worms.

And, I still don’t see students protesting drug and alcohol deaths…

PAUL ENGLE

Sagle