The assertion that an east-west highway will boost the economy in rural parts of Maine has already been proven to be bogus. In October 1999, the Maine Department of Transportation and state planning office released the Phase IV Technical Report, the last of the studies evaluating a proposed east-west highway across Maine, which exposed the fallacy.
How about taking the Phase IV report off the shelf, along with the others in that series that looked at, not just the environmental effects of several different possible routes across the state including the one to Coburn Gore, but the whole concept. Those earlier studies have already shown that an east-west highway is not justified.
The new study the Legislature approved this session isn’t going to look at the environmental effects, the economic effects, or the need of such a highway. It is only to study the “feasibility” of it, and for good reason. The environmental effects of an east-west highway have already been proven to be greatest for the Coburn Gore route. The need has already been shown to be so far out into the distant future as to be speculative. The economic benefits have already been shown to be paltry, if nonexistent, except, obviously, for the developers and construction companies so bent on building it.
The Phase IV Technical Report was the result of a study that specifically examined two comparable interstate highways, I-89 and I-91 in Vermont and New Hampshire. Based on the transportation and economic trends before and after the construction of those two interstate highways, the authors concluded that no significant employment or population growth would flow into rural counties located along an east-west highway across Maine.
To the extent that economic effects from a highway would occur, the authors concluded they most likely would occur within commuting distance of Bangor and other larger population centers along the corridor, which are already located near Interstate 95. The not-so-positive findings about the two interstates are numerous.
The most common type of development along these corridors is highway-related services such as fast-food establishments and gas stations. Neither highway dramatically altered the underlying economic structure of the corridor communities. Both I-89 and I-91 generated negative bypass effects on some communities.
In the areas of White River Junction, Vermont and Lebanon, New Hampshire, communities that were bypassed, particularly along Route 5 between White River Junction and Newport, lost roadside business development as a result of the construction of I-91. Windsor County, Vermont, where I-89 and I-91 intersect, experienced the slowest rate of job growth of all counties in Vermont from 1969 to 1996.
St. Johnsbury, Vermont, located at the intersections of I-91, I-93 and U.S. Route 2, is served by five interstate exits, but was found to have generally underperformed the Vermont economy over the past 20 years. Although I-91 did provide rural populations to the north of St. Johnsbury with better access to the town, the convenience of the interstate also encouraged residents to drive to Littleton or Lebanon, New Hampshire to shop. As a result, St. Johnsbury experienced little new retail development in recent years.
Proponents of an east-west highway will be hard-pressed to refute the actual historical data compiled about the harmful effects to rural communities of I-89 and I-91, both of which had been in operation roughly 30 years at the time of the study. Those highways serve regions such as central and northern Maine, providing comparable highway connections to Montreal. None of the findings should be a surprise to anyone who has followed the debate over the east-west highway. A financier would have to be a fool to invest in such an outdated concept rescued from the trash bin of history.
Pamela Prodan is an attorney practicing in Franklin County and one of the founders of Citizens for Sensible Transportation.
Good analysis.
Ms Prodan should be applauded that she took a ‘step back and see the whole picture’ analysis of this E-W Highway study. Using both the last, and the previous, study’s, she has shown that this Highway is not only not needed but is, as she plainly said, ” The need has already been shown to be so far out into the distant future as to be speculative” . Speculation is the last thing Maine needs right now since speculation ties up money, money that is needed for immediate Capital Investment that generates actual paying job’s, over a very period and has no foreseeable impact on Maine’s worker’s, much less it’s economy. The only long term money that’s even close to being justified for that kind of speculation is the Bald Mountain mining project, and that still has a long way to go toward showing anyone that it’s profitable enough to invest in, much less create any type of mining and clean-up position’s. The recent tidal power plant project is a more immediate type project that’s worthy of investment. At least it’s here, it’s in place and is in use and producing, maybe not much, but it’s producing. The recently recovered and gaining ground Maine rail is another example of investment paying off. Long term investment is clearly needed and I would never argue that. But investment needs to be done where it benefits both the business community and the State as a whole. Anything else is nothing but a rape of the public’s trust by the business community’s outright greed and constant lust for power and control. Maine already has the lust for control going on now. We don’t need it cloned and amplified.
Ms Prodan is an attorney, and therefore doesn’t have to worry about where her next meal is coming from, unlike so many poverty-stricken Mainers in our state, so she perhaps can be excused if economic development for the state’s poorer counties is not one of her top concerns. Also, much has changed in the 13 years since the study that she quotes, including the ongoing expansion of the Panama Canal, which is underway as we speak, and which could provide new sources of shipping traffic and offshoot commerce through the port in Eastport, if an EW Highway is in place to move the cargo into the high population centers of the USA. Development and growth in Eastport could provide a powerful economic engine throughout downeast Maine, if significant new ship traffic has a reason to utilize Eastport.
Ms Prodan has the benefit of being objective since she has no economic investment in this either way. And as far as the Panama expansion going on, I’m all for it and the additional traffic it might bring to Eastport. That’s why the rail system is the one to concentrate on, not truck traffic. Rail is more profitable, more maintainable and more easily scheduled to accomidate the shipping industry’s numerous schedule’s. The Highway is nothing more than a give-away to the Canadian trucking company’s. They want the road built so badly, fine. Let’s see them put up the money, publicly, and go thru the process. But a Canadian toll road going thru Maine that benefit’s only a Canadian company is both idiotic and ridiculous. If it’s built in Maine it benefit’s Maine. If the Canadian trucking company’s benefit alongside, fine. But the reason for the road to be built, and it’s actual benefit’s, need to be seen as fact, not a ‘promise of future economic opportunity’. We all saw that with the paper mill’s. Are we all ready to go thru that again, only worse, on the next go-round ?
“Ms Prodan has the benefit of being objective since she has no economic investment in this either way.”
Ms Prodan is not “objective.” She’s been an anti-development attorney for at least 15 years, according to the newspaper accounts that are easily accessed online. Also, there are numerous reasons why rail is not necessarily the best way to transport cargo, all of which have been discussed in the highway debate ad nauseum, including sluggish railroad delivery schedules, the need for warehousing rail freight, the inability of railroads to monitor the freight closely while truckers can closely monitor their freight, the horrid condition of the rail lines in Maine, and the inability or disinterest on the part of the railroad companies to invest in their own tracks and rolling stock.
“But the reason for the road to be built, and it’s actual benefit’s, need
to be seen as fact, not a ‘promise of future economic opportunity’.”
Risk is inherent in the business world. Your whole theory of Bombardier coming to Maine is a perfect example. Will Bombardier just put down roots in Maine, despite shortages of skilled workers, as well as anti-Canadian business sentiment that could turn into anti-Canadian legislation, or anti-Canadian activism such as what you and your pals seem to advocate? It would be a risk for Bombardier to come here, but the promise of future economic opportunity might be enough, theoretically, to entice them to take the risk. Realistically though, I think they’d listen to the anti-Canadian business rhetoric of folks like you and turn their attention to regions of the country that are less risky in terms of US-Canadian business collaboration.
With all due respect, I think there’s a difference between possible economic development for the state’s poorer counties, and the proposed E-W highway. Any benefits to Maine if the highway was built are very speculative, and there are responsible studies which call into question any such benefits to Maine.
And to move cargo from Eastport to the rest of the U.S. could be accomplished more easily by a decent road from Eastport to Bangor to connect to I-95. If we need an east-west highway it should be built in the U.S. Looking at the map, I can’t see much advantage by going through Canada to get to the upper U.S. midwest.
Your point is taken, respectfully, and continues to be a part of the ongoing debate as it should be, in my humble opinion.
In terms of connecting Eastport to the midwest via I-95, I’m reminded of what I saw this weekend driving home to Maine from Southern New England…wall to wall traffic, gridlock, 10 mph speeds, in parts of southern Maine and New Hampshire. Traffic around the Boston area is routinely bottlenecked around morning and evening rush hour, as any experienced traveler in New England knows… so much so that driving schedules for business travelers are often adapted to account for rush hour traffic in northeastern Massachusetts. An EW Highway built primarily for transporting freight from both Canada and the USA might look pretty enticing to haulers by comparison.
“A financier would have to be a fool to invest in such an outdated concept rescued from the trash bin of history.”
I find it unusual that an attorney is such an expert investor as to advise Mr. Vigue that he would have to be a fool to invest in such an outdated concept. I’m sure that Mr Vigue and his team of investors will be calling today for an appointment so that you can tell he and his fellow fools where to invest their money.
Gee, let’s see what’s available or foreseeable. The recent Thermogn Plant in Millinocket needs to move their product to Eastport for shipping to Europe would seem to fit this bill. Both MM&A and Eastern Maine Rail are looking to expand their shipping capacity and traffic count. Bring these together, with Cianbro either building, or re-bulding, the rail line and working to rebuld or expand the Eastport dock’s sounds like a good investment. Same for the BNAS Complex since DECD is already in talks with Bombardier to bring their A-320 & A-330 manufacturing contract’s here since they don’t have the capacity in their current plant’s to meet production needs. What also needs to be factored in is ‘Bomby’s recent sales, and option’s purchase’s of 36 aircraft, and the purchase right’s on an additional 26 with option’s for another 16, of their commercial aricraft for the Swiss, the Australian’s and the South Korean’s. And ‘Bomby’ has another option for 6 additional airliner’s from an un-named commercial carrier. The Australian’s alone are signed on for a $ 400 million (US) sale, the Swiss for $ 650 million (US). These number’s alone demand some VERY serious consideration when the word ‘investment’ is made here in Maine in relation to the BNAS Complex and Maine’s workforce. It also needs to be factored in as far as the local Community College’s and returning Vet’s who have aerospace experience goes.
And the still to be considered Mack Point Tank Farm is another option. Add to that the recent sale of the Searsport to Loring pipeline is another investment that will keep on paying off for a very long time. These are all either immediate or imminent project’s that are both here now, or are as so popularly called ‘shovel ready’ to go, that can benefit both business and the community’s they are located in. Maybe it’s time that pie in the sky was forgotten and what’s on the plate in front of you was taken more seriously.
I’ll tell you about some pie in the sky: Your belief that a Canadian company like Bombardier is going to produce aircraft in a state like Maine that has a serious shortage of skilled craft workers, a lack of skilled high-tech workers, and also a deep anti-Canadian business bias advanced so forcefully by some Mainers (like yourself and many of your anti-highway friends) during the East-West Highway debate…”the business community’s outright greed and constant lust for power and control,” as you put it in your earlier post here.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, any attempts to discuss pipeline development in Maine will run headlong into the same anti-development folks who are standing against the highway. A Mack Point Tank Farm proposal will collide with the same “No Tanks” folks who are standing in the way in Searsport.
The pipeline mentioned is already there from Searsport to Loring so it’s an addition or replacement, not new, to already existing pipeline’s. And as far as a shortage of skilled worker’s goes, who’s been choking off at every opportunity to encourage and develop the workforce here in Maine ? ‘Bomby’ has at least $ 1 TRILLION in production contract’s that they need to find plant’s for to meet production requirement’s. Now, anyone wanna go and complain about what $ 1 TRILLION would do for Maine’s economy, both now and over the next 20 years since this type of manufacturing generates additional maintenance business’s, ripple business’s and training opportunities and requirement’s.
Look at what’s going on at BIW and their current workload. They have the new ZUMWALT Class destroyer that’s going to keep BIW in production and maintenance for a very long time. It’s also gonna keep and build a long term workforce that’s needed for these ship’s to be maintained, on top of the sub work that’s there. And in case anyone has forgotten, Avondale’s yard’s in Louisiana are shutting down to Navy contract’s next month when their final LPD Class Carrier/Dock is finished Builder’s Trial’s and acceptance test’s from the Navy. That limit’s the Navy’s repair yard choice’s to Norfolk, Charleston or BIW. That generates additional yard repair business since the option’s are now down to 3 on the East Coast.
And as far as Anti-Canadian bias goes, you sir are apparently more than willing to surrender yourself to whatever wallet has the most that you are willing to swallow at any one point. I am not Anti-Canadian. I am anti-stupid, anti-shortsighted, anti-decisionmaking and anti-idiocy. I am all for Bombardier, which is Canadian, comng in and investing. What I do have a problem with is when some company comes in and makes all kinds of promises and then ‘suddenly’ starts making all kind of excuses as to why they can’t live up to what they promised, in writing, and then just cut’s and run’s. That Bombardier has shown to date they are more than willing to invest in those community’s and local business’s proves to me that they are going to live up to what they say, and put in writing, they are going to do. I, and I’d be wiling to bet the DECD, are looking to see how that’s going to turn out.
Let’s let Bombardier read some of your past anti-Canadian statements in the blogs of the BDN:
“…the road’s ‘need’ needs to be based on Maine’s need’s and benefit’s,
not what the Canadian’s want. They want the road so bad, they can build
it, and fund it. Does anyone see Ottawa riding over the hill with their
checkbook in hand?”
“…what purpose does the Highway serve if it doesn’t move Maine’s economy forward ? It’s sure gonna move the Canadian economy forward, cutting off at least 3 to 5 hour’s, each way, for travel time from Montreal to Halifax, for the Canadian trucking companies.”
“…Public opinion and education is forcing this monster to be seen for what
it really is, namely a huge give-away to the Canadian trucking and
utility companies that want a ‘Gov’t free’ ( When you actually read The
Act you see that Maine gives up ALL SOVEREIGNTY over the whole ROW) ROW to NB and NS…”
And let’s not leave out today’s version of your anti-Canadian slant:
“…a Canadian toll road going thru Maine that benefit’s only a Canadian company is both idiotic and ridiculous.”
All the Canadians have to do, including the executives at Bombardier, is listen to this sort of “up yours” rhetoric from folks like you, and while you’re on your knees kissing Canadian hands trying to get them to invest in Maine, they will hold their nose and tell you, “up yours.”
Vigue had it right when he stated in Dover Foxcroft that we should not look at the Canadians as enemies but as friends. Bombardier is much more likely to listen to him with his “alliance” approach than someone with your “up yours” approach.
The E-W highway is a massive boondoggle from start to finish. Route 9 is highly underutilized even after the state spent millions rebuilding it. Do you want another dinosaur that will need millions in maintenance for the thousands of cars that might travel it yearly?
Right on Danny. Short, to the point and with a good long-term perspective. Keep going !!!!
tinyurl.com/73huk6r
an east-west highway would be great for Bangor (if it actually went through or near Bangor) as it would make it a major transportation hub. The small towns that it would go through are pretty disillusioned if they think it will help them (they are a lost cause economically, unfortunately).
the state should protect the right of way of route 9 (don’t allow any more single-residence or business driveways on the improved sections of rt 9), and then connect it with 95 east of Eddington (bypassing the village in Clifton would be good too). That is probably “good enough” for the traffic traveling west from Calais. Now we just need a similar road from Newport west (one that bypasses town centers wherever possible, and anywhere there is a bypass built the state needs to protect the right of way and not allow any curb-cuts.
Move along folks..Just another BANANA (Build Absolutly Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) who’s interest is keeping Maine a welfare state and playground for Limo Liberals…