[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