Bill to kill Gorham Connector crashes in committee
May 8—A bill that would ensure the controversial Gorham Connector proposal is dead was soundly rejected by the Legislature's transportation committee this week.
LD 1020 would repeal 2017 legislation that directed the Maine Turnpike Authority to plan and build a toll highway extension from South Portland, through Scarborough and Westbrook, to Gorham.
The bill follows the authority's announcement in March that it enlisted the Maine Department of Transportation to consider alternative solutions to commuter traffic congestion west of Portland. Neither agency has said the connector proposal has been dropped entirely.
The bill also would order the authority to sell any land purchased for the project to the previous owners or give it to the municipalities where the properties are located. If municipalities didn't want the land, the authority would have to offer it to a local land trust before selling it.
The authority has spent $6.3 million on 15 properties totaling 340 acres, or about 30% of the 50 parcels the authority would need to complete the project.
The bill's supporters say they want to make sure the plan to build a 5-mile, four-lane toll highway isn't considered a viable option in the upcoming study, which is expected to take 18 to 24 months.
The committee sided with the bill's opponents, including Department of Transportation officials, who said eliminating the connector proposal from potential solutions would predetermine the outcome of the study before it starts.
"I don't think you'd want to do any of those things until you knew what the options were," said Sen. Brad Farrin, R-Norridgewock, a committee member.
The committee voted 9-3 Wednesday to recommend that LD 1020 "ought not to pass" when it goes before the House and Senate in the coming weeks.
The committee instructed Department of Transportation officials to report back early next year on the study's progress.
"I don't want the department or the turnpike expending resources and energy and time without community support," said Rep. Lydia Crafts, D-Newcastle, committee chair.
The MTA has already spent $18 million developing the connector proposal, which has been in the works for more than 20 years.
Now estimated to cost at least $331 million, the project drew organized opposition after the authority announced its preferred route in February 2024.
Public dissent swelled last summer, when an MTA poll found that 45% of respondents said they oppose (12%) or strongly oppose (33%) the connector, while 40% said they support (20%) or strongly support (20%) building the road. Municipal councils in Scarborough and Westbrook withdrew their support.
Supporters of the highway project say it would be an effective solution to traffic congestion, especially as more homes are being built in communities west of Portland.
Connector opponents say it's an outdated and costly proposal that would do little to fix commuter congestion. They say it would displace homes, worsen suburban sprawl and vehicle emissions, and destroy wetlands, farmlands and forests.
They also note that traffic counts dropped in the wake of the pandemic, in part because more people are working from home, and they say options such as roundabouts and other improvements to existing roads would be cheaper and less invasive.
The transportation committee also rejected another turnpike-related bill, LD 1292, also sponsored by Sen. Stacey Brenner, D-Scarborough, recommending 12-1 that it "ought not to pass." It would require the authority to transfer additional toll revenue collected beyond its legislatively approved budget to the Department of Transportation's highway fund.
Copy the Story Link
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
The plan to turn 34th Street into a ‘busway' is a road to nowhere
The next unwelcome upheaval coming to Manhattan's streets has nothing to do with congestion pricing. The Department of Transportation's latest strike against motorists is a 'proposal' to turn 34th Street, from Third Avenue to Ninth Avenue, into a 'busway.' There are quotation marks around 'proposal' because the scheme is certain to be a done deal by August. The DOT always gets its way, never mind a rubber-stamp City Hall review. 6 Despite its potential to cause havoc and chaos for millions of daily NYC commuters, the DOT wants to transform a major slice of 34th Street into a 'busway' and boost sluggish public transport. deberarr – Advertisement The 34th Street project's purpose is to speed up buses — currently cruising at a mere 3 mph on the major crosstown artery — by 15%, the DOT said. But banning 34th Street to through car traffic is of a piece with the insidious agenda the DOT has inflicted on New Yorkers for years: limiting or disallowing auto traffic at any particular location in the name of reducing congestion — but with the unstated, actual goal to increase congestion on neighboring streets and avenues. The purpose: To prove that cars are evil and bikes are better. Now, if cars can't use most of 34th Street — duh — they'll have to go somewhere else. Once the change takes effect, expect presently crowded 32rd, 33rd, 35th and 36th Streets to bear the brunt of the spillover. Advertisement 6 The goal of the 'busway' scheme, says proponents, is to increase bus speeds from its current snail-like 3mph. Corbis via Getty Images The 34th Street diktat stinks even on its own supposedly mass transit-friendly terms. As The Post's Gabrielle Fahmy reported this week, regular, actual bus users argued before Community Board 5 that the new busway will do little or nothing to make bus travel faster. That's because the MTA, which works in lockstep with the DOT, won't do what's needed most: provide more buses. The passengers weren't mistaken. I counted precisely two so-called Select crosstown buses, one in either direction, on a half-hour stroll along 34th Street's commercial heart between Fifth and Seventh avenues Wednesday afternoon. Of course, simply adding buses would remove the supposed need to warp a thoroughfare that's a critical part of the city's commercial DNA. 6 Despite the outsized influence of the city's 'bike-lobby,' a mere 61,000 commuters arrive to New York City each day on cycles. Gregory P. Mango Advertisement Although 34th Street won't have a bike lane, the gridlock points that inevitably pop up when cars are diverted are cited by the DOT's bike-lobby stooges as proof that the problem is too many cars, and by Gov. Hochul and former governor and mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo, who inflicted 'congestion pricing' on us. But the cycling lobby, led by an uncompromising organization called Transportation Alternatives, cowed elected officials into ignoring the reality of how most city dwellers reach their jobs. According to the latest US census, 1.87 million Big Apple residents take public transit to work. Just over one million more go by car, either as drivers or as part of a car pool. 6 In tandem with the MTA, the New York Department of Transport is likely to approve the 'busway' plan, even if it is not in the best interest of Tri-State commuters. Advertisement In contrast, the number of city dwellers who get to their jobs by bike was 61,600 in 2023, as per the DOT. That's a 'whopping' 2.2% of total city residents: a percentage that would be lower still if the data included commuting patterns of the tens of thousands of suburbanites who pour into Manhattan each day. Yet the relatively tiny bike-riding cohort enjoys special privileges at everyone else's expense. Metastasizing bike lanes, which now stretch 1,500 miles in the five boroughs, are the largest reason for the nightmare that streets are today for ordinary motorists, taxi and truck drivers — and, even, yes, for buses. Other tricks the DOT has up its woke sleeves are 'plazas' inserted where there's no need for them; no-left-turn rules that trap hapless motorists on 23rd Street for blocks on end; and Third Avenue traffic lights from East 60th to East 96th streets re-timed to reduce speeds from 25 mph to 15 mph, the latter speed ideally suited to cyclists. 6 The pro-bike non-profit Transportation Alternatives is behind the plan to reconfigure the 34th Street corridor. When bike lanes, barriers and 'plazas' reduced Broadway to a single auto lane south of 34th Street, was it surprising that the traffic merely spilled over to surrounding avenues and streets? Congestion pricing? Hah! Notoriously gridlocked West 47th Street between Sixth Avenue and Times Square remains a horn-honking horror ever since Broadway south of West 48th Street was closed to cars several years ago, forcing them to turn left onto Seventh Avenue. 6 Even with the most optimal outcome, there is little doubt that the 34th Street 'busway' plan will shift traffic congestion to adjoining side-streets. Andriy Blokhin – Advertisement The DOT, enabled by spineless mayors, was hijacked by anti-auto, climate-obsessed ideologues with little interest in the agency's traditional mission to simply make streets as safe and sane as possible. Little wonder DOT commissioner Ydanis Rodríguez touts the city's 'bike infrastructure accomplishments as a climate-justice solution,' City & State reported. Let's hope the next mayor will have the guts to make the DOT return to its core mission. But given the candidates' pro-cyclist sympathies, the Dodgers will return to Brooklyn sooner. scuozzo@
2 days ago
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON -- A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Advertisement Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. Advertisement 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.
