EDDINGTON, Maine — The Maine Department of Transportation is again in hot water with town leaders who are upset about the lack of communication over the last five months regarding the proposed Interstate 395-Route 9 connector.

Selectmen on Wednesday filed a Freedom of Access Act request with Richard Hewes, a DOT attorney, requesting all communications between eight state transportation employees involved with the project.

Town leaders also requested information about any meetings held since the May 16 public hearing in Eddington that drew hundreds of residents, where the proposed highway project was discussed.

“It is in the best interest of the community to be informed, as this project will have a major impact on the town of Eddington,” Town Manager Russell Smith states in the FOAA letter.

The letter points out that the DOT apologized in January for “insufficient outreach by DOT to leaders of the affected communities along the proposed I-395 US Route 9 connector” and also said, “residents of Brewer, Holden, Eddington and Clifton deserve to be fully informed of all decisions and progress. We recognize that it is our obligation to do so, and we will rectify this situation in the future.”

Plans for the proposed connector — designed to ease heavy truck traffic between the Canadian Maritimes and the federal highway system — are in the hands of the Federal Highway Administration, which would pay for the project if approved, DOT spokesman Ted Talbot said Sunday.

“Quite literally, we’re in a holding pattern awaiting the federal agency response,” he said. “There is really nothing happening right now.”

If that is the case, why haven’t DOT officials simply sent out a message to inform the towns, Eddington Planning Board member Gretchen Heldmann, said Sunday.

“It takes one minute to draft an email,” she said. “We’re just asking for updates. We want to know what is going on and want to be kept informed. This is kind of a big deal” for residents along the proposed route.

The DOT and the Army Corps of Engineers both collected comments at and after the public hearing and are awaiting a federal response. Transportation officials are asking the FHA to review a draft environmental impact statement, and the Army Corps is trying to identify the least environmentally damaging option for construction of the two-lane, limited-access highway.

The state’s preferred route would extend I-395 at its Wilson Street junction and would roughly follow the Holden-Brewer line until entering Eddington and connecting with Route 9.

Brewer was so upset about the state’s decision to change its preferred route at the end of 2011 without discussing the matter with them that city councilors unanimously withdraw their support for the connector in March.

The state’s former preferred route, which cut through the center of Holden, would cause a significant environmental impact to around 90 protected vernal pools, at least 28 considered significant vernal pools, and the new preferred route would affect around 11 vernal pools with only two listed as significant, a map on the project’s website states.

State transportation officials have been studying a Brewer-Holden-Eddington connector since 2000. When I-395 was extended to Brewer and the Veterans Memorial Bridge was constructed, much of the truck traffic that had used Route 9 in Eddington to connect from Canada to Brewer started using Route 46 as a connector, which prompted residents to request that an alternative route be built.

In the FOAA letter, town selectmen officially requested “all emails that were sent or received that relate to the I-395 US Route 9 Connector project in any way, shape or form from the following individuals: Russ Charette, Judy Gates, Richard Bostwick, Herb Thompson, David Bernhardt, Ken Sweeney, Deane VanDusen and Steve Walker,” between Aug. 1, 2011 and Oct. 17, 2012.

“Specifically, this means emails sent or received with comments about permits, the public hearing, drafts of documents, arrangements for meetings, etc. as they may relate to this project,” the letter states.

The town has requested a waiver of the fee associated for copying “as the information would contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of government,” the Eddington letter states.

Selectmen also want information on all of the meetings held to discuss the project since the public hearing, “whether explicitly stated as an agenda item or not.”

“The board wants to know of any meetings held, regardless of whether they were interagency meetings or not,” the FOAA letter states. “The board also wants to know about any conference calls held regarding this project and to see any notes taken by the participants.”

Eddington’s town manager contacted his counterparts in Brewer and Holden and was informed that neither has been kept informed about any progress on the project.

“The Maine DOT has not kept the town officials and residents fully informed whatsoever since the public hearing in May,” Smith said. “At the public hearing it was said that the public advisory committee would meet again and as of [Oct. 17, 2012] they have not been contacted either.”

Scheduled interagency meetings have been cancelled and replaced by “working sessions” that are open to the public, but do not allow input from the public, the Eddington town manager said.

“Eddington has a big stake in this project and as town manager I would like to be informed and be able to attend any meeting along with town officials to oversee the process,” Smith said.

Join the Conversation

27 Comments

  1.  “Quite literally, we’re in a holding pattern awaiting the federal agency
    response,” he said. “There is really nothing happening right now.”

    Very typical of federal and state government. Anything takes a long time. The towns need to have some patience.

  2. Don’t need it. The locals don’t want it. We can’t afford it, and they are going to do it anyway.

    Tell me again about our “free society”

        1. It does not always happen that way ive seen were some one doesn’t like some thing an they stopped some one from doing some thing .

    1. The only locals who don’t want it are the ones that will live adjacent to it.  A lot of people in the Bangor – Brewer area – and beyond – DO want it.

      I will grant you that this has been handled terribly by the state, though.

      1. I want one of the other proposed routes — the one the Army Corps of Engineers eliminated because of wetlands. 

    1. It doesnt save enough for a trucker to need this access.  At present we all know to save time and energy to go to G&M market and take 46 across.  Why do you think you see so many Midland Trucks on this road?  The DM’s (Driver Managers) have realized it is the easiest route.

      Having the bypass would only save a trucker maybe 80 cents of fuel.  Granted it would be nice to keep on going at 55, yet the airline road is anything but a freeway.  There are places where we must slow to a crawl because of intersections on Route 9. This bypass smells more like a need for a certain campground to ease for their customers.

      The proposed corridor to Canada?  Doesnt help us at all.  Just some ones constituents being made happy.  A waste of road construction if you ask me.  There is no real East West rout till you get to Massachusetts.

  3. Canada commits to a 4 lane highway between St John and the border, and it’s almost completed.  The US has himmed and hawed about doing the same on the US side between Bangor and the border, and here we go… a piddly 5 – 6 mile section…  At this rate, we’ll have a 4 lane between Bangor and Calais in about 50 years.

  4. This is all wrong.  Run the freaking connection straight through from Eddington to 95 in Veazie.  Make it straight, build a new bridge, and be done with it.  The route as shown is ridiculously stupid.

    1. For many years most people thought that the third bridge would cross to the Hogan Road. When the time came to make it happen there was too much traffic and retail activity on that route.  Too much traffic would have been put through the middle of Bangor. Veazie would have the same affect unfortunately.

  5. You look at the map, look at the wetlands, look at the greater money, the shorter route (and socioeconomic status of Holden residents over Eddington) and it all makes sense….and of course the connector is needed, it really is the only stretch of the Airline that hasn’t been dealt with.

  6. They eliminated the only route that made sense.  You want to dump traffic from 395 EAST of route 46. The further east the better. 

    1. You obviously do not live in Holden…….we live outside of town for a variety of reasons and one being the peace and quiet….so for you the old route made sense but for Holden residents sorry it was a bad choice.   Thankfully there are way too many wetland areas for that to happen!

      1. sorry, but the needs of many outweigh yours.  Unless you live right next to the road, it wouldn’t affect you and all of the residents on route 46 are negatively impacted with the status quo — especially the older homes near route 9 — those homes are very close to the road.  Route 46 was not designed to handle the heavy traffic it sees now.

        I’d also accept the currently favored route if they could extend it north of route 9 and then connect to route 9 somewhere east of route 46

  7. The biggest losers will be the homeowners who live very close to the new highway, but not near enough to have their homes taken. They should be compensated for what will become a huge loss in value and quality of life.

  8. The State would rather impact people and their homes than vernal pools(mud puddles). They are keeping it quiet so peolpe will forget what a bunch of idiots they are.

  9. Bottom line is that they will actually do what they want, – doesn’t matter what the locals or non locals want.

  10. Why would anybody want to build a road in that area, then get hen pecked to death by every cross haired geezer in the towns involved with it.  You can’t blame lack of progress on the politicans, it’s the local yokels that is causing the problems.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *