Unmet Purpose & Needs

10.01.2019 – Another damning and embarrassing infrastructure rating: 4th WORST!!

Taking too long?

Reload document

9.25.2019 – An interesting report from Transportation for America (T4America). “Repair work on [existing] roads and bridges generates 16 percent more jobs than construction of new bridges and roads.” T4America

When you hear MaineDOT’s talking point that the I-395/Route 9 connector will bring much needed construction jobs—that is a misleading statement—fixing the roads and bridges we already have will generate 16% more jobs than the connector!! That is where the priority should be, and not a project that many of us see no reason for…

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

3.01.2017 – The impacts will keep coming even after the 8 homes are demolished and the 54 properties taken:

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.25.2017 – Just a reminder of what 2B-2 isn’t…

2.21.2017 – UPS knows that left-hand turns are dangerous and in fact their GPS mapping minimizes left-hand turns when possible.

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.05.2017 – A history lesson in January 2003 and a forewarning of what was to come. Was the process fair? Was 2B-2 “truly the best alternative”? Did a “small constituency” hijack the study process? Read for yourself and make up your own mind…

Click here to view pdf version with working hyperlinks.

1.22.2017 – A repost that is very important. Literally hundreds of us are impacted in some form or another from 2B-2. The MaineDOT minimizes the 8 homeowners, that will soon feel the affect of eminent domain, with the word “displacement” as if that minimizes the impact and the pain that many of these people feel. The MaineDOT voiced serious concerns over those living on Route 9 in their Oct2003 Technical Memorandum. I have asked the question several times: why are the people and the communities on Route 9 that were so negatively and severely impacted in 2003, no longer impacted? We never got an acceptable answer; “we took a hard look at Route 9” is not now and never was an acceptable answer.

Click here to view Oct2003 Technical Memorandum – turn to page 5.

9/30/2016: Perhaps the most important question in this 16 year transportation study. How did we get from an alternative that would severely impact local communities and negatively affect people – in their own words – to where we are today? Why has no one stepped forward to hold these government officials to their own words?

9/29/2016: Many questions and still few answers…

1.18.16 a Capture

9/28/2016: We were told by Maine DOT officials at the March BACTS meeting that, with the exception of the SML Bridge replacement in Kittery, this connector project is the number one transportation project in/for the state of Maine. This “priority” project has been in the “works” since the year 2000. You can judge for yourself by the schedule below if this seems to fit that priority that Maine DOT would like you to believe. I would only say that if this project was so important, why has it taken 16 years to get just to this point and another 7 to 9 years for fruition?

Click here to view MaineDOT document.

7.04.2016: Tweeted out on the 4th of July.

7.03.2017: The biggest lie in the ROD is that the public was involved in this boondoggle. NICE TRY!!

5.13.2016: Bangor Daily News article on-line May 12th. Yes – Governor – we feel the same way about 2B-2: nobody listens – we weren’t kept abreast of all the meetings either – the fix was in as the MDOT already made up their minds and 2B-2 will be constructed against the will of many local Mainers – a frank and open dialogue has never happened as the only Public Hearing since 2B-2 was selected was a listening-only-session – the MDOT will not provide an on-the-record two-way question-and-answer session that is so deserved on such a critical matter. Yes – Governor – it defies logic that at a time when the state cannot even afford to maintain our existing roads and bridges – we are even discussing this project let alone funding it for $61 million. Wouldn’t 2B-2’s $61 million be better spent on Maine’s unmet existing transportation needs? No one will listen, the fix is in and our efforts have been marginalized at every turn. Whether it’s the East/West Highway, the I-395/Route 9 Connector, a park or a national monument – we understand the frustration when citizens have absolutely no say on significant issues that affect their lives.

Click here to view complete BDN article.

5.08.2016: It’s amazing what you can find on google. The FHWA is still high-fiving an initiative that the LePage administration cancelled in 2011. How did we get from these proclamations in a BDN 1.08.2012 article – within two days of the MaineDOT apology for 2B-2’s “forced-introduction” as the second preferred alternative of the I-395/Route 9 Transportation Study: “We’ve really got to focus more on maintaining our top critical infrastructure…the department’s economy-stressed budget would be better spent on maintenance as opposed to large capitol projects.” to: spending $61 million on an alternative (2B-2) that met only 20% of study purpose and needs in April 2009?

AND – don’t forget the Presque Isle Bypass a 3-phase project with a $120 million cost – the first phase being 1.5 miles at a cost of $14 million!! At a time when the state can’t afford to maintain existing infrastructure – these questionable projects need to be stopped – MaineDOT’s bypass-mentality needs to be refocused to maintenance and preservation of the existing infrastructure and not one more foot of new asphalt until our roads and bridges are brought back up to an acceptable level – a level deserved by Maine citizens and not a level determined by politics…

Wouldn’t the $61 million cost of alternative 2B-2 be better spent on our state’s unmet transportation needs?? This is your money!!

Click here to view FHWA website article titled FHWA-Livability-Case Studies.

Click here to view Bangor Daily article dated 1.08.2012.

5.06.2016: A must read about what’s wrong with our DOT – a different excerpt from the one previously posted including a comment to help the author fill in the blanks. An excellent article from someone with no dog in the fight.

Click here to read entire document.

4.30.2016: Recent tweets.

4.27.2016: Received this link today through the website administrative email. A powerful article that asks a simple question: WHAT ARE YOU DOING, MAINE?

Click here to view complete document.

4.26.2016: Recent tweets to #I-395 Route 9 Connector.

4.22.2016: I always remark that our questions and concerns are hidden away in a book that no one will read – here’s the book!!

Click here to view Draft Responses to Substantive Comments.

4.22.2016: Don’t let MaineDOT’s own words stay buried in a book that no one will read. These are their words – not mine…

Click here to view above document.

4.14.2016

4.12.2016: The MaineDOT likes fancy acronyms such as LEDPA (least environmental damaging preferred alternative). MaineDOT’s LEDPA (2B-2) is extremely damaging to the environment as can be seen from facts taken from the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement). The MaineDOT just doesn’t care about people OR the environment.

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

4.09.2016: The MaineDOT and the FHWA would like you to forget what they’ve said about their 2B-2/preferred alternative in the past. The quoted statements below are the words of MaineDOT and FHWA transportation professionals. Don’t let these people change the history of the first near-decade of this study. AND – don’t wait until you hear the bulldozers before you state your opposition – use your voice now!!

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.29.2016: 2B-2 will be commissioned with 148 access points and the MaineDOT says I’m wrong!! I’m posting this page again – note that the access points on 2B-2’s segment of Route 9 exceeds the table – shouldn’t that set a red flag? Remember, this was supposed to be a limited-access connection to Clifton – with no added access points! What seems safer to you? Table 12. clearly demonstrates that as the number of vehicles per day increases – as the number of driveways increase – the numbers of accidents per year increases. It’s as simple as that and Table 12. has nothing to do with “a hardlook at Route 9”!! For an agency that should foster safety as its #1 priority, they seem to not have that view when it comes to 2B-2…

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.28.2016: Part of my statement to BACTS – the MaineDOT doesn’t want you to think this still applies BUT until they can explain to me how a hard look at Route 9 cancels their own words of October 2003 – I will still use them. I stand by these as 100% accurate.

Click here to view Oct2003 MaineDOT/FHWA Technical Memorandum see page 5.

3.27.2016: The MaineDOT said after my BACTS Statement that everything you’ve just heard is false. Well even the FHWA co-manager of this study knew the the preferred alternative [2B-2] did not meet purpose and needs. When he raised his objections to the MaineDOT he was taken to the woodshed – his superiors overruled his decision and here we are today listening to the MaineDOT say 2B-2 meets purpose and needs – makes me want to scream!!!

Click here to view documents.

3.26.2016: This memorandum was handed out at the BACTS meeting. What does this mean? Back in September 2010 – the now infamous “hard look at Route 9” was based on a 20-year design to year 2030. If you’ve followed this project over the past few years – you will note that every time that time doesn’t work in their favor – the MaineDOT just changes the time. Changed to 2035 in 2012; 2040 in 2015 and now it’s been shoved out to the year 2045. That redefines the definition of near-term to the year 2045. Why did they have to do that? Easy the connector will not be constructed until between 2022 and 2025 – they need 20 years to make their near-term definition work – thus 2045 makes the numbers work for them. Interesting that they can change the criteria anytime they feel like it and from what we witnessed today – they can do anything they want – unchecked and unaccountable. Really an ugly affair…

3.21.2016: How dangerous are left-hand turns? 2B-2 will have 158 of them!!

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.20.2016: The cost to construct 2B-2 ($61 million) is based on near-term needs only. How will 2B-2’s long-term needs be funded? AND Shouldn’t 2B-2’s long-term costs be included – upfront – with 2B-2’s initial near-term cost? 2B-2 may become the most expensive of all the other 79 alternatives and not the cheapest alternative to build – once ALL the costs are added up.

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.20.2016: What’s the plan to satisfy 2B-2’s “east of Route 46” system linkage need and the need for a limited-access facility – deferred in Sept2003 for 20 years?

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.17.2016: A “harder look” at this DEIS controversial statement.

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.17.2016: $61 million does not and cannot guarantee the outcome of this project.

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.08.2016: This study has three specific needs: System Linkage Need, Safety Concerns Need and Traffic Congestion Need. The system linkage need was defined as a limited-access connection on Route 9 to the east if Route 46. Note that 45 of the 79 studied alternatives met this system linkage need and 2B-2 does not. In Sept2010, the MaineDOT avowed the system linkage need as a valid need for this study before promptly deferring that valid need for 20 years, identified as a long-term need; alternatives previously only partially meeting the system linkage need were magically changed to meet the system linkage need in the near-term or for the 20 year design of the connector. The design year in 2010 was 2030, changed to 2035 in Jan2012 for the DEIS and carried forward as 2035 for the FEIS. I advised FHWA Headquarters that the 2035 FEIS-design year would not satisfy purpose and needs for the whole 20 year design life of the connector. MaineDOT then took another “hard look” and changed the design year to 2040. Apparently the Final EIS is not as FINAL as one would expect for the $2.8 million that it cost. MaineDOT’s “hard look” was based solely on traffic capacity of Route 9. As much as the MaineDOT would like you to believe – their “hard look” does nothing to fix the many serious safety issues that the 4.2 mile section of Route 9 brings to alternative 2B-2 as stated below. The MaineDOT has conveniently never discussed these issues – they have been tucked away in the back of the book without comment. I contend these concerns from October 2003 are just as pertinent today and no matter how many “hard looks” you take, 2B-2 does not meet the safety concerns needs and does not meet the traffic congestion needs. This same 4.2 mile segment of Route 9 has had at least 3 fatalities since 2012 that are not even part of MaineDOT’s study data!! These issues have been addressed extensively on this website. MaineDOT has yet to address how they plan to satisfy 2B-2’s long-term needs 20 years from now (1.01.2039) and how they plan to fund those long-term needs. It is highly probable that when you add 2B-2’s long-term costs (currently unknown) to the FEIS-stated $61 million cost of 2B-2 in the near-term, alternative 2B-2 could become the most expensive of all 79 studied alternatives -OR- will local access be removed from 2B-2’s 4.2 mile segment of Route 9 to provide the limited-access connection to the east of Route 46?? The latter would essentially cut the Town of Eddington in two…

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

3.04.2016: Seems a stretch that an alternative (2B-2) not meeting the study’s valid system linkage need, an alternative (2B-2) meeting only 20% of purpose and needs in April 2009 is the only alternative out of 79 studied alternatives (45 of which met the system linkage need) that the ACOE would consider permitting. What about 2B-2’s long-term system linkage needs and the need for a limited-access facility that will come due in 20 years per MaineDOT’s own 9.21. 2010 statement? OR- could it be that no further permitting will be required as the MaineDOT plans to turn that 4.2 miles of Route 9 – an integral section of 2B-2 – to limited access, thus removing local access and essentially cutting Eddington in two? OR- could it be that there are no plans to satisfy 2B-2’s valid long-term needs and this study is just a scam, based solely on near-term needs and not addressing the purpose and needs of this study? Why hasn’t the MaineDOT addressed how they plan to satisfy 2B-2’s long-term needs and what affect it will have on the environment – including for once – the human habitat. Private citizens impacted by alternative 2B-2 deserve to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – not continued silence and dissimulation – what does the MaineDOT plan to do with 2B-2’s 4.2 mile section of Route 9 (aka Main Road, Eddington) in the future?

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.26.2016: Future newsletter page. Was it best practice to select an alternative (2B-2) that does not meet the study’s system linkage need of a “limited access connection between I-395 and Route 9 east of Route 46” when 45 of the 79 studied alternatives satisfied that need?

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.24.2016: Followup email to the Federal Legislative Delegation and url for the NOAA website listing Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine as 1 of 8 species “among the most at risk of extinction in the near future.”

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.24.2016: Email to the Federal Legislative Delegation.

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.19.2016: Bangor Daily News article. NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Services – one of the many cooperating agencies to this study – shares jurisdiction of Atlantic salmon with the USFWS. You won’t find any comments to the DEIS from NOAA, they opted to let the USFWS work the issue. According to this article, NOAA will be spending $5 million per year over the next five years on projects to stop the decline of Atlantic salmon, while seeking applications for $9 million in community-based habitat restoration. How does NOAA reconcile spending millions to “stop the decline of the species…at risk of extinction in the near future” at the same time that this study has selected an alternative that will cross 2 streams with Atlantic salmon and critical habitat with 12,000+ vehicles per day by 2040? The previous preferred alternative did not impact anadromous fish. Why did frogs and salamanders living in vernal pools – temporary non-spring-fed pools that may not even exist from one year to the next – seem to have more criticality in this study than Atlantic salmon? Frogs and salamanders aided the removal of the 3EIK-2/preferred alternative and the replacement of same with 2B-2, an alternative that only met 20% of purpose and needs in April 2009. Atlantic salmon – let’s drive 12,000 vehicles over their habitat every single day – shouldn’t be an issue!! Once again, best practices seem to have been thrown out the window…

Click here to view document with remarks and working hyperlinks.

2.18.2016: Our friends in Augusta would like you to believe that this study started on Sept 21, 2010 and forget everything that MaineDOT/FHWA transportation professionals said over the previous near-decade of the study. That of course is not the case as can be seen in this one paragraph from an Oct2003 Technical Memorandum. I contend these statements are as applicable today in 2016 as they were in 2003 when 2B was removed from further consideration for the second time. Some of the major players responsible for these statements are the same transportation professionals that now ignore their own words and professional opinion. Hmmm…

..

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

2.16.2016: What do you think will happen to Main Road in Eddington if 2B-2 is approved?

Click here for document with working hyperlinks.

2.06.2016: Best practice enters into everything we do in our lives. It appears that best practice was sidestepped sometime between the last PAC meeting in April 2009 and the September 2010 “hard look at Route 9”. How can the selection of an alternative (2B-2) that doesn’t meet purpose and needs be a product of best practice especially when MaineDOT’s own words in October 2003 clearly stated: “Traffic congestion and conflicting vehicle movements on this section of Route 9 would substantially increase the potential for new safety concerns and hazards.”? One could easily reach the conclusion that 2B-2 was not the outcome of best practice in transportation engineering…

Click here to view document with working hyperlinks.

1.30.2016: Another snapshot from a future newsletter – a reminder of what the MaineDOT stated in Oct2003 reference the same 4.2 mile section of Route 9, an integral segment of 2B-2, when addressing why they removed 2B from consideration in Jan2003. MaineDOT’s concern: “Traffic congestion and conflicting vehicle movements on this section of Route 9 would substantially increase the potential for new safety concerns and hazards.” Those concerns are as pertinent today in 2016 with 2B-2 as was the case in 2003 with 2B; safety cannot be dismissed by a “hard look”. In MaineDOT’s own words:

1.27.2016: Another snapshot of a future newsletter page. No comments necessary…

1.25.2016: Another snapshot – just a reminder of where we were a few years ago: a petition of non-support from Eddington residents.

1.23.2016: Another snapshot. What many don’t understand is that the Environmental Impact Statement does not stop and will not stop the government from doing whatever they want to do – it is simply a document that details the impacts to the environment by the project as it goes forward. Our transportation professionals say 2B-2 is the cheapest to build and the least impact to the environment. As you can see, the impact to the environment is actually quite large and also includes endangered species such as Atlantic salmon and possibly the northern long-eared bat. As far as being the cheapest to build, that’s because 2B-2 does not meet the original system linkage need of a “limited-access connection between I-395 and Route 9 east of Route 46”. That system linkage need did not go away – it was deferred to beyond 12.31.2039 – so in 20 years – the long-term system linkage “east of Route 46” system linkage need will come due and a second project will be needed to meet that need to correct what should have been done at the project’s onset. So essentially, 2B-2 may become the most expensive of the 79+ studied alternatives seeing how it will have to be constructed twice!! And all they had to do was select an alternative that actually met the purpose and needs from the onset. They made the rules before they broke the rules!!

1.20.2016: Another snapshot from a future newsletter. Were the books cooked? Found two interesting reports that suggest that they may have been. FOAA documents have surfaced that suggest the cost of 2B-2 was more of a guesstimate than based on fact and conveniently just low enough to meet the benefit to cost ratio (the ratio is actually 1.007 – but rounded up to 1.1). The FEIS-stated cost was based on a rolling design at the same time that the FEIS-stated design was stated as freeway design criteria. Obviously it looked better and made a better sales tool to have their preferred alternative cost $61 million instead of the actual cost of $93.24 million that the freeway design would cost. Why is the cost so important? If they used the real cost of $93.24 million – the Benefit to Cost ratio would be less than 1.0 making the project unacceptable. Traffic forecasting: Route 9’s projected traffic capacity is their “justification” for the “hard look at Route 9”. If numbers can be intentionally over-estimated, I contend they can also be intentionally under-estimated and that was necessary to make this whole hard look thing work. As I have documented, we are now on version 3.0 of the “hard look at Route 9”. Remember, future traffic count is a computerized projection – not fact – and subject to intervention. Were the books cooked? As Mr. Cortright stated: “the forecasting process is opaque to outsiders”. How convenient – you be the judge!!

Click here to read Mr. Krol’s report.

Click here to read Mr. Cortright’s report.

1.13.2016: Another page from a future newsletter. The most damning statement against the MaineDOT selection of 2B-2 within the entire DEIS is not in the FEIS. The words of our state and federal transportation professionals have been intentionally removed; was this negative statement not considered substantive enough for transfer – OR – like the many times before, is it that the MaineDOT doesn’t want to answer to those anti-2B-2 remarks, just like they don’t want to fess up to previously identified safety concerns: “substantially increase the potential for new safety concerns and hazards” that removed alternative 2B from further consideration in Jan2003 – OR – make believe that they never said that an alternative connecting to Route 9 to the west of Route 46 would “negatively affect people living along Route 9 in the study area” and “seriously impact local communities along Route 9 between proposed alternative connection points and Route 46”? Who will finally hold these people accountable? How many times will our friends in Augusta be permitted to hide statements that speak in opposition to 2B-2? 2B-2 is not the answer, it’s nothing more than a band-aid that will cost $tens of millions in the future when the long-term needs come due on 12.31.2039. 2B-2’s long-term needs are another subject that no one seems to want to talk about. Any of the 79+ studied alternatives satisfying the system linkage need of a “limited-access connection from I-395 to Route 9 east of Route 46” DID NOT HAVE LONG-TERM NEEDS!!! To those that think 2B-2 is the cheapest to construct – guess again – ’cause 2B-2 needs to be built twice – if only the MaineDOT and the FHWA had listened to their own words…

1.12.2016: Another page from a future newsletter. All remarks within quotation marks are from state and federal transportation professionals. Most of these comments have been submitted in one form or another in my questions to the DEIS and none were considered substantive for comments. Our friends at Augusta have never answered to any of these remarks!! Don’t you think it’s about time that they do??

1.02.2016: We are constantly told that this study has not changed when we know for a fact that criteria was changed to make 2B-2 fit the study. Below you will see what the project was pre-2010 and post-2010. Don’t let anyone get away with saying that 2B-2 was analyzed with the same criteria as all the other 79+ studied alternatives. That is factual a lie!!

1.01.2016: A direct quote from the April 15, 2009 PAC meeting. If they took such a “hard look at Route 9”, why didn’t they see how absurd it was to ignore this area!! ANY of the 79+ studied alternatives satisfying the “east of Route 46” system linkage need, bypassed the Village of East Eddington. If it was so important to bypass Route 46, why wasn’t it just as important to bypass the Village of East Eddington and the intersection of Routes 9 /46 with conflicting vehicle movements and a posted speed of 35 mph? AND – if they are so concerned with truck traffic on Route 46, why on earth would they have these same big trucks transit through the village @ 35 mph on their way west another 4 miles and 4 more changes in speed limits? Is this the best they can do? What’s that smell?

Click here to view the April 15, 2009 PAC meeting summary.

1.01.2016: A glimpse at a page from a future newsletter. What aren’t more people outraged? This connector was supposed to bypass Route 46 AND the Village of East Eddington!!