According to the backers of the new bridge 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 and take them in order. This actually makes 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 by rail at the moment, (with UP doing most 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?
Unless BNSF makes it two tracks from the east side of the river 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 when Sandpoint is friendlier to BNSF.
Paul Engle, Sagle