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