The MaineDOT/FHWA would like you to believe that a “hard look at Route 9” was all it took – after ten years of work – that 2B-2, an alternative that met only 20% (1 of 5) of the purpose and needs in April 2009, was suddenly the best alternative for this connector with any and all presentation of documented facts by private citizens to refute the 2B-2 selection purposely obscured by their (MaineDOT/FHWA) own definition of the word “substantive”.
Projected traffic numbers may or may not be skewed by this “hard look”, however, a “hard look” alone does not and cannot erase the existing 148 existing access points and 10 existing roads that this connector now inherits, with 5 different posted speed limit changes over that 4.5 mile section of Route 9 now integral to 2B-2 with 158 possible left turns (left turns identified by the FHWA as increasing the chance of an accident by 7% per additional access point added to a rural highway and 2B-2 starts with 158 access points), and the fact that this connector also inherits the Village of East Eddington and its 35 mph speed limit.
If all of this is going over your head and you still want to make this a nimby issue, answer this one question: If you were tasked to provide this area with a real solution to get the logging trucks off of Route 46, a truck route starting in the Village of East Eddington, would you continue through and past the Village or would you bypass the Village and the 4.5 miles of Route 9 as was the reason behind the original and still valid system linkage need which 2B-2 fails to meet? You don’t even have to get into whether or not Route 46 is or is not an issue to answer that question and by the way – the mill is dead – no more logging trucks are going to the Bucksport Mill, yet suddenly the latest worry is all that Canadian truck traffic and Canadian tourists – REALLY?
Don’t let the MaineDOT/FHWA continue to hide the facts and control the conversation.