Wednesday, July 21, 2010 —The 2010 New England Seacoast Region Hupmobile Club Tour visited Strawbery Banke on Tuesday, July 12th. As promised in our paper of July 16th, we’re posting some photos of these elegant vehicles here.

OK, granted, the event was, like, nine days ago, but these are old cars we’re talking about here. It’s not like it was breaking news.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 — Finally, a little bit of good news from Augusta: the Portsmouth Herald reported this morning that Maine’s Governor John Baldacci has announced that he will send a letter in support of New Hampshire’s pre-application for TIGER II stimulus money to replace Memorial Bridge.

In response to Baldacci’s announcement, local pro-bridge activists will meet tonight at 4:30 p.m. in the Conference Room in Kittery’s Town Hall.

The goal of the meeting, according to our source, Stephen Kosacz, is to “plan the next strategy based on the very recent news that Baldacci has agreed to sign/work with New Hampshire on the Notice of Intent for the TIGER II application, which is due July 26.”

“This is a major change from Augusta;” Kosacz writes, “however, given the likelihood of our not receiving any money from TIGER II, the feeling is that there will continue to be considerable resistance in Augusta to Maine’s spending the money on the bridges. I am not sure what folks have in plan for tonight other than to keep the pressure on and figuring out how are we going to do that.”

Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010 12:33 PM
From: Save Our Bridges!

On Friday, the Connections Study held a conference call for the members of the Stakeholders Committee. Seventeen people attended the call, including representatives from the Study, the state DOTs, and the Stakeholders/Steering Committees. We had three objectives for the meeting:

1. Find out the positions of each of the state DOTs
2. Discuss the implications of unknown funding sources for Alternative 10 (see below), the Bike/Ped Alternative
3. Discuss how to find a workable solution that the two states could use as a basis for agreement.

The answer to the first question remains somewhat obscure, but only in the case of Maine. NH DOT representative said clearly that NH favors the three alternatives that include a total of three bridges crossing the river. Maine DOTs representative refused to indicate a preference, saying that must wait till the end of the study. Study Communication Director Carol Morris reiterated her comment from a month ago that “we have always known that Maine favors the SML bridge and NH favors the Memorial Bridge. So we are left with the impression that Maine will not tell the public, but will tell the study team, and that NHs priorities are clear, with flexibility around the SML bridge. I am frustrated, and I am sure others are as well.

I raised the issue of funding implications for Alternative 10 because it is the only alternative that includes a non-vehicular bridge. At the last public meeting I asked where the funding would come from, and got a non-answer (Something like: I don’t know, we will get to it, we don’t have to consider it at this time). This alternative is the only one that will include non-traditional funding (for the non-vehicular bridge). The funding process and sources for a vehicular bridge are well known and understood. The people who develop funding packages, grant requests, bonding issues, etc., know the process and the people who will ultimately approve the funds. In the case of a non-vehicular bridge, the potential sources have only partially been discussed. There are huge unknowns concerning capital and operating costs. Will the costs be borne by federal, state, or local governments? Will the costs come out of roadway and bridge budgets? Will they come from “trail maintenance” or sidewalk budgets? Will the states turn over maintenance and operations to the two municipalities (who will likely not accept the responsibility)? For all the other alternatives, these are known facts. For this alternative they are unknowns. This alone constitutes a “fatal flaw” in the alternative. If you cannot envision a path to completion, there is no path. This is a dead end. Take it off the table.

That still leaves us with the need to get the two states to agree on the outcome of the study. Discussions about extending the life of the SML bridge by 10-20 years were at least discussed by the two states. This approach of creating an option to build a replacement for the SML sometime in the future might form the basis for some interesting negotiations between the two states. We are hopeful that fruitful discussions continue.

If all else fails, we have another option

We hope that the two states can come to a reasonable solution that preserves the three crossings. But if the two states cannot agree, we have another suggestion: Swap Ownership in the Two Bridges!

The Memorial Bridge is owned 50/50 by Maine and New Hampshire. The Sarah Mildred Long Bridge is owned 50/50 by Maine and New Hampshire. This mixed ownership means that each state can veto the plans of the other state, and that neither state can move ahead without the agreement of the other. What if Maine agreed to swap its ownership interest in the Memorial Bridge for New Hampshire’s ownership in the SML Bridge? Assuming that the capital values of the two bridges are very close (within a few million), this would put Maine in charge of the future of the SML Bridge (which we are told they favor, but which they will not admit), and New Hampshire would be in charge of the future of the Memorial Bridge.

Perhaps this is too simple an idea. Perhaps there are hurdles that would need to be leaped. Perhaps it would take two states to pass joint resolutions. But if it removed the contention over the fate of the two bridges, perhaps it is worth discussion. I am sending a summary of this to the two Commissioners. I will keep you posted.

Ben Porter
Save Our Bridges!
www.SeacoastBridges.com
A Coalition of Seacoast Local, Portsmouth Historical Soc., Seacoast for Change Grassroots Network,Kittery Business Association, York County Chamber of Commerce, KEYS, Am. Legion Booma Post, and others

Saturday, July 17, 2010 — We just received this account of yesterday’s Stakeholder Teleconference Call (held in lieu of what had been a scheduled Stakeholders Meeting) from Stephen Kosacz, by way of Ben Porter. — The Ed]

Despite last minute meeting cancellation, there were a significant number of people who logged into the conference call indicating (to me) that the Stake Holders are still committed to their part in the process. Jon Carter (Kittery Town Manager), Ben Porter (SeacoastBridges.com, Stephen Kosacz (Autoworks, Inc.) and Gary Beers (Kittery Town Councilman) met at the Kittery Town Offices

NH DOT rep Bob Landry took a day off from his annual summer vacation to attend — an indication to NH’s commitment to this project

NH and Maine DOTs are not in agreement on what are the best of the remaining alternatives. To determine who was in favor of what, Ben Porter asked both DOT reps what their respective positions on the alternatives, Landry said NH felt all 3 bridges were necessary, Maine DOT rep simply said they were waiting for the conclusion of the study. Carol Morris reiterated that the two states do not agree, and indicated that Maine favored the Sarah Mildred Long bridge.

Ben Porter pointed out that the SML bridge has 5-7 years so that the repair/replacement decisions could be delayed so that the costs could be spread out over a longer period therefore providing a relief valve from the current heated crisis.

Kosacz suggested NHDOT replace the Memorial Bridge now and if the SML was more important to Maine than the MB, then Maine could deal with it when and how they saw fit. Gerry (Maine DOT) pointed out that the ownership of the MB and SML are jointly owned by ME and NH thus consensus is required.

The only alternative that has yet to pass Fatal Flaw Analysis is option 11 (No Memorial with a Transit system substitute) and a Hybrid mid level SML. Kosacz pointed out that the life cycle costs are a required element in the decision making process and with a projected $1.7 million annual operating costs for the Transit system and no allowance for costs increases over the next 100 years, the operating costs of the Transit alternative are $170 million. Kosacz also pointed out that Connections study traffic interviews conducted in the spring proved the driving patterns of NH residents using the Memorial Bridge would not be achieved by the Transit system alternative, i.e. people don’t drive from downtown Portsmouth or New Castle, go to a single destination in Kittery, and return home. For them shopping in southern Maine is a multi-destination event

The study/decision on the remaining alternatives will require another 3 weeks and will be in the hands of the NH and Maine DOT with possible input from the Governors’ offices. It did not seem that the Steering Committee or Stake Holders would have be able to review or comment on the report prior to its publication although HNTB and Carol Morris continued to state that our (public) input was valued.

Maine DOT rep would not confirm Maine would join NH in submitting a Notice of Intent on the Tiger II grant application whose deadline has been extended to the end of July. Audibert noted that this was a decision that would be made at the Commissioner and Governor level. Jon Carter pointed out that U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree said at last Friday’s meeting, the NOI was the only US Government document she had seen that a grade school student could complete.

A representative from the historical interests pointed out that rehabilitation of the Memorial Bridge was no longer on the list of alternatives even though there was no official removal of it. Paul of HNTB indicated that recent studies of the MB revealed that the MB is so badly deteriorated that it is impossible to repair the MB and replacement is the only option. The Connections Study has not delivered the condition data to the historical interests for their review.

Questions continue to be raised about the viability of funding coming from either Department of Defense or Homeland Security. This is complicated by the fact that the rail portion of the SML bridge is owned by PanAm Railways. It is not clear exactly what part of the bridge is owned by the rail company, nor is it clear what payments are made for the use of the rail line.

Friday, July 16, 2010 — Today’s Gazette — the physical, newsprint-based lifeform, not this silicon-dependent appendage — includes a note directing people here for news about the Memorial and Sarah Mildred Long bridges, explaining that the topic has become so volatile we can’t do it justice in print.

For example, the Maine – New Hampshire Connections Study, on whose recommendations the fates of the bridges rest, had scheduled a Stakeholders Meeting for today. Then at the last minute the Study’s staff decided to skip the meeting and hold a conference call instead.

We could hardly wash our hands of the issue — few things could be more vital to the region than these bridges. So we’re going to learn how to use this site as an up-to-date way to collect and make available all the fast-moving information we can gather. We’ll have a couple of reports later today We have just uploaded several messages from people active in the very heart of the process. Before we post those, we’ve got to work out a few technical details. If there are any WordPress experts out there who might be able to tutor us a bit, please leave a message in response to this post. If you have anything to add to this discussion, please e-mail us at [editors [at] nhgazette.com.

Note: We’re not trying to supplant what seacoastbridges.com does — far from it. We’re allies, and we believe our objectives are identical — to the extent possible, keep both bridges open to all forms of traffic.

Subject: Re: strategy for/after this Friday’s Stakeholders’ Meeting

Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:01 PM
From: Benjamin S. Porter <[deleted for spam protection]>
To: Stephen Kozak <[ and six others, deleted for spam protection]>

All

I have never done this before either. What I do know is that we need a single voice.

In theory, the teleconference tomorrow is limited to members of the Stakeholders and Steering Committees. I think we need to be respectful of the NH and ME officials that will be in the meeting, and not introduce new participants to them by phone. We can probably do this by limiting the conversation to people who they are already familiar with. To make sure everyone gets a voice, we need to probably meet 30 minutes before the call to discuss how we will deal with the call.

It is actually their meeting, so they may want to set the agenda. I have sent Carol a three point memo with the key points I want to get covered. Stephen has done the same. We need to review the agenda and make sure that our points get addressed. If there are any other points, we should get them on the table for discussion.

My points are straight forward:

1 – We need to know where each state stands on each of the 5 remaining alternatives.

2 – We need to express our concerns about the Bike Ped option since it will use a previously untested funding process. It should not be in the same list as the other vehicular options.

3 – We need to explore how the existing Alternatives could form the basis for the two states to reach an agreement.

I think we are close to an impasse. Point 3 above is really the most important part of the process. Getting point 1 off the table will help in getting to point 3. Point 2 should be raised just to get that option off the table, and to get the two states to admit that it is essentially the same as Alternative 11, removing the bridge and implementing a bus service.

I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow.

Benjamin S. Porter

Subject: strategy for/after this Friday’s Stakeholders’ Meeting

Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:34 PM
From: Stephen Kosacz <[deleted for spam protection]>
To: [Deleted for privacy. — The Ed.]

Conversation: strategy for/after this Friday’s Stakeholders’ Meeting

This Friday’s Connection Study sounds like it will be a non-event but at least we’ll be continuing the dialogue and showing that the Community is not taking every possible opportunity to be heard.

I think that Ben Porter has offered some rational dialog to the babble by pointing out that the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge has enough life left to it that decisions on that could be tabled for the present connections study since the most sensible solution for vehicle traffic being maintained during construction and improved maritime traffic is a new bridge built alongside, or, if Maine DOT really has to save money, simply repairing the current SML bridge to buy it a couple of decades when bridge construction technology may have improved and increased traffic projections become a reality.

This begs a question for tomorrow’s conference call with both DOTs — what would be wrong with simply replacing the Memorial Bridge and repairing the SML bridge when the latter is needed in 5-7 years?

remember to ask DOT/HNTB – with no reduction in vehicle traffic resulting on the Memorial despite projected increase in cycle and ped traffic on a more bike/ped friendly MB, can the 3 bridges adequately handle vehicle traffic as projected for the next 10 years? (i.e. Memorial Bridge replaced, SML repaired in 5-7 years, I-95 as is)

[Two paragraphs in which several people are introduced, deleted for privacy.]

The local and NH press has been working on this but Maine press seems indifferent.

Not being an experienced community activist, I don’t know what we do next.

–
Stephen Kosacz

Above — Tom Holbrook, being carried into RiverRun, his bookstore, by grateful customers.

Thursday, July 15, 2010 — The Christian Science Monitor’s Marjorie Kehe interviews one of our local heroes today: Tom Holbrook, owner of RiverRun Bookstore.

On September 8th, 2006, the bookstore moved from Commercial Alley (where Tom’s used book shop, SecondRun Books, is now) to its present location on Congress Street, several blocks away.

Tom asked his customers if they would form a box brigade to help him move.

We didn’t count, but so many people said “Yes” that they were able to form a nearly unbroken chain six hundred feet long.

Part of Tom’s success is in hiring the right people. One of them, Michele Filgate, got a little acknowledgement of her own today; they all deserve it.

[Again, this is being posted Friday afternoon, but we have edited the posting time and date to place it in the correct chronological order.]

From: “Benjamin S. Porter”
Date: July 14, 2010 3:06:54 PM EDT
To: carol morris
Subject: Re: Connections Study: Potential Meeting Change

Carol

There are several reasons that we should meet, even with the announcement of the remaining 5 alternatives.

1 – What are the respective positions for the two DOTs? It is a good guess on the first and last two, but the middle alternative is anybody’s guess. I would hate to say that one alternative or another is favored by one or the other DOT, and then get it wrong. While, you said in the last meeting, that ME and NH have favored the SML and Memorial bridges respectively, I do not recall that overt statement having been made in prior meetings. I was a bit surprised to hear that this was common knowledge. It certainly was urban rumor, but I am not sure it was common knowledge. Even on our visit to Augusta, neither Cole nor Jane Lincoln indicated which was favored. So I think it is very important for for these points of view to made public and part of the record, even at this point in the process.

2 – At least one of the options is not really an option at all. Alternative #10, Bike/Ped with SML Hybrid, is completely unique and highly unlikely that if selected would ever be built. All of the other Alternatives will have similar funding scenarios, depending on the normal DOT funding sources (State/State/Federal for capital, and State/State for operating). The funding sources for a Bike/Ped bridge in particular will not have access to the same sources of funding. According to Bob Landry, the NH source of the funding (capital) for the bridge would require taking funding from, among other sources, trail management for at least the next decade. I have no idea where the funding would come from on either the Maine side, or whether there would be access to any federal funding at all. Further, the discussions of turning the operating costs over to the two municipalities seems to be a non-starter as well. I can only begin to imagine how one would coordinate the funding process when the process itself is not designed to take on a project of this magnitude or complexity. Given the normal level of uncertainty for funding a vehicular bridge, moving to a non-vehicular bridge is going to take the level of uncertainty to new levels. The chances that all of this can occur rapidly approach zero. Given that these levels of uncertainty are so high, inclusion of this alternative seems to be a stretch, and probably disingenuous. We tried to make this point at the last meeting, but it looks like the points were not considered or accepted. We need to have this discussion on the record.

3 – Alternative 4 may provide “options” for the future. These options need to be explored in some discussion with the study team. Doing a rehab on the SML bridge can effectively delay the decision to build a standard replacement or expansion, or hybrid bridge. The valuation of this alternative using standard option value techniques might make sense, and the discussion of this approach could possibly provide a means for the two states to come to a consensus. The option concept simply says, that you invest some money now, to preserve the option to do something different in the future. Designing an expandable 2 lane bridge is one way of doing this. Another way is to extend the life of the SML bridge (e.g., 25-30 years) to preserve the option of building a hybrid just up stream in 30 years time. This discussion, if handled well could form the basis for some off line discussions between the two DOTs, but unless there is a way to bring the discussion to the table, it may be overlooked, and we head into in impasse.

Those are my reasons for having the meeting.

Benjamin S. Porter

[Note — this e-mail from Carol Morris of the Connections Study was forwarded to us by a recipient. We are posting it on Friday, July 16, but have edited the date of the post to make it show up in the correct chronological order in relation to other posts.]

[Begin message.]

From: carol morris [mailto:cmorris@morriscomm.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Connections Study: Potential Meeting Change

All,

As you know, we have scheduled a combined Steering/Stakeholder Committee meeting for this Friday at 10 am at Kittery Trading Post. The purpose of the meeting is to update you on progress towards completing the draft report and to provide you, in as much as is possible, with information on the content of the report. The report itself needs to be reviewed and approved by both DOTs before it can be released.

Please read this entire message and respond to the question we have asked at the close of the email.

Maine and New Hampshire DOTs have been meeting and talking over the past weeks, and progress has been made: The list of proposed alternatives is now proposed to be reduced from ten to five.

No longer on the table are any of the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge replacement alternatives that would be built on-alignment. The DOTs agreed that the benefits of being able to keep traffic on the existing bridge during construction of a new bridge off-alignment would be significant. This takes Alternatives 5a and 5b out of contention.

Also off the table are the three Sarah Mildred Long Bridge alternatives that are four lanes. The new Hybrid alternative provides sufficient capacity to replace these through the 2035 Study Period; all of the two-lane Sarah Mildred Long options could be expanded to four lanes should the need arise in the more distant future.

All alternatives off the table still require full documentation and approval of that documentation.

This means that the five alternatives remaining are:

Alternative #4: Memorial Bridge Replacement and Sarah Mildred Long Rehab on alignment

Alternative #6a: Memorial Bridge Replacement and Sarah Mildred Long Low-Level Replacement off-alignment

Alternative #9: Memorial Bridge Replacement and Sarah Mildred Long Hybrid (Hybrid alternative is off-alignment)

Alternative #10: Memorial Bridge Bike/Ped Only and Sarah Mildred Long Hybrid

Alternative #11: Memorial Bridge Removed with Bike/Ped Transit and Sarah Mildred Long Hybrid

Some of these alternatives are favored by MaineDOT and some are favored by New Hampshire DOT, but we have not yet reached agreement as to which could be favored by both DOTs.

In addition, there are other areas where consensus has not yet been reached, and this means that the preliminary report to be delivered to the DOTs this Friday will have some holes. A significant issue is the question of costs. While it is clear that some of the alternatives will have lower costs than others, there have been change and adjustments to the cost estimates over the past months, and development of a cost estimate for the Hybrid bridge and refinement of the cost estimates for the other alternatives is still ongoing. Since this is a critical criterion, further consensus cannot be achieved until cost estimates have been fully accepted by both DOTs. There are also some outstanding comments regarding environmental and other impacts that need to be completed and presented to the two DOTs.

Finally, I know many of you will have questions about the application for TIGER II. This is a decision that will be reached outside of the study process and we will likely have no new information for you this Friday. The pre-application deadline has been moved out to July 26th.

Given all of this, our question is: Do you want to meet on Friday or is this summary of Study status sufficient? While this is a topic of very strong interest to all of you, your time is valuable (perhaps more so on a Friday in July) and we do not want you to feel compelled to meet if we have a minimum of new information.

Please let me know your opinion ASAP. If we have a handful of folks who have questions but most do not feel the need to meet, we can also set up a conference call for the same time period if that would be more convenient.

Please accept our apologies for this last minute potential change.

[End of message.]