To the Editor:
I oppose the construction of any of the three proposed Bypass alternatives for the following reasons:
a. The Dollar Cost of building any of the Bypass Alternatives: The approximate $100 million would be better spent on repairing existing roads and bridges. Our existing infrastructure is in severe decline, so it does not make sense to create more infrastructure.
b. Providing a long-term permanent and costly solution to an intermittent seasonal problem is not practical; so I judge that none of the three bypass construction alternatives meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative (LEDPA) criterion of being a “Practical Alternative.”
c. The long drawn out proposal process for building a Wiscasset Bypass around the downtown area has resulted in a severe hardship for many Wiscasset property owners who want or need to sell their homes, or to make costly improvements to their property. A prompt “No Build” decision would immediately resolve this hardship which has been imposed on many Wiscasset residents.
In my opinion, the Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative is to make improvements to the existing Rt. 1, which would relieve the significant slowing of traffic through downtown Wiscasset that Maine DOT’s studies have shown to occur only during daylight hours on summer weekends (No more than 10 percent of the calendar year).
To spend some $100 million of scarce public funds; irretrievably damage dwindling natural habitat of our land and water resources; displace property owners and remove property from Wiscasset’s tax rolls in constructing a bypass to relieve an irritation and inconvenience of relatively short duration, is in my opinion, unjustifiable.
“No Build” improvements to the existing Rt. 1 should include the relocation of the “Red’s Eats” business on Downtown Rt. 1. Pedestrian traffic crossing Rt. 1 to and from Red’s Eats is the primary reason for the slow, stop and go traffic during the summer weekends, when vehicles respect the pedestrian-in-crosswalk right-of-way traffic law.
Constructing a Wiscasset Bypass, with all of its negative consequences and impacts, does not make any practical sense when major improvements to the situation can be achieved through relocating a business, making suggested traffic flow improvements, and providing a means for pedestrians to cross Rt. 1 in downtown Wiscasset without stopping vehicle flow.
I am sure that if the time, talent and funds that have been spent on developing the Bypass Alternatives had instead been spent on developing alternatives for reducing pedestrian traffic across Rt. 1 in Wiscasset, we would have already found a satisfactory solution at much less cost to the public.
It is imperative to stop thinking that the only answer to traffic problems is building new roads, and instead invest our scarce public funds into other transportation alternatives, or at least fund the deferred maintenance of existing roads and bridges. As transportation alternatives are developed in the coming years we don’t want to be stuck with more roads and highways that have permanently damaged our natural environment, and increased our road and bridge maintenance costs.
Paul E. Dodson
Wiscasset
