Funding decision awaited as repair details emerge

WINDHAM – The broad implications of a possible reconstruction of Windham’s River Road were discussed in a public forum held Monday night at the Windham High School.

River Road residents and others concerned with the future of the important commuter roadway that links North Windham and Westbrook were brought up to speed on many aspects of the project, ranging from the width of a new road to how long the project could take to complete and whether funding has been secured.

While many residents’ questions couldn’t be answered by those conducting the meeting since the project is in its infancy, broad strokes were alluded to in hopes of bringing the public up to date with what a 20-member locally led Public Advisory Committee has been working on for the past seven months.

Charlie Haddock, a lifelong resident of River Road and spokesman for the committee, offered the public the following details on the project:

• Project timeline: Field surveys are already in process. This winter, the decision will be made on whether the River Road project will be funded in the transportation department’s next biennial budget. “In the end, do we know when we’ll get that money or if we’ll get that money? No. It’ll depend on how much we push for it,” Haddock said.

• Scope of project: Full reconstruction of the roadway or at least a surface overlay would take place along the entire 8.62-mile-long road, which starts at the Westbrook line and ends at Route 302 in North Windham. The road currently has 7,000 to 11,000 cars per day and is classified as a major collector road.

• Project costs: When asked how much the project might cost, Ernie Martin, project manager for the Maine Department of Transportation, estimated between $12 million and $15 million. Much of the money will come from federal and state sources, he said.

• Intersections: Four of the more dangerous intersections – Anderson Road, Mallison Falls Road, Newhall Road and Windham Center Road – would be addressed either by use of traffic lights, roundabouts or some other form of device.

• Bridges: Since bridges aren’t a part of the scope of the reconstruction project, the most a reconstruction project could do, Haddock said, would be to “straighten out” some of the dangerous twisting curves near the Pleasant River bridge.

• Road width: While federal guidelines call for 12-foot-wide travel lanes and 6-foot paved shoulders, the committee recommends 11-foot travel lanes and 5-foot paved shoulders. The committee cited several reasons for the narrower widths, namely project costs and limiting impact to abutters. Current road width averages around 24 feet with little in the way of shoulders. “A roadway is really not going to be fully safe unless we have a paved shoulder,” Haddock said. “That will allow vehicle traffic to avoid emergency equipment that is on the road, it will allow vehicle traffic to get off the road and out of harm’s way if someone breaks down.”

• Right of way: Most of the road is a 4-rod road (66 feet wide) except for the section in North Windham that is 3 rods, or 50 feet. While much of the road will need to be widened and would utilize some of the unused right-of-way corridor, some sections, such as near Dolby Funeral Chapel in the Newhall section, have homes that abut closely to the road. Questions as to the width of the road through the more densely developed sections won’t be answered until engineering begins, Haddock said.

• Roadside ditches: Drainage beside the roadway will be addressed since it plays a big role in the durability of the pavement, Haddock said. “One of the major aspects the new road must deal with is drainage. So that means we need to look at this open space, which may be as much as 15 feet on either side of that roadway,” he said.

• Vegetation: Roadside trees that residents think are theirs may actually be property of the state, Haddock said, referring to his own roadside tree which his grandfather or great-grandfather planted and that Haddock recently learned is within the state’s 66-foot right of way. “So know that when you look at that 15-foot clear space on either side, there needs to be significant ditching done to make sure the roadway is stable, you may have to sacrifice some vegetation,” Haddock said, reminding attendees that the committee isn’t in charge of specifics such as which trees must be cut down. That responsibility lies with the state engineers who draw up the final roadway plans.

• Eminent domain: Haddock mentioned the potential use of eminent domain saying, “The fifth amendment to the Bill of Rights gives the state the authority to take property. Are we anticipating that? I really can’t tell you that (this early in the process). But they can take that property if they need to for a project, but they will compensate you for that.”

• Historic areas: There are two historic areas – one in the Newhall area and another near Anderson Road – which have homes listed on the National Register of Historic Places. “Know that if a property is eligible to be on the historic registry or if it’s on the historic registry, then the state is limited to how it can impact that,” Haddock said.

Public comment

Since the committee and Martin were able to detail how the reconstruction project would affect individual abutters, public comment was limited to broad questions regarding the project.

Steven Pock, of 112 River Road in Windham, asked whether a weight limit would be imposed to protect the newly reconstructed roadway.

“That’s a good question,” said Martin, of the transportation department. “The weight of the trucks will have to be taken into account.”

Pock also requested the road be closed to local-only traffic to “expedite construction.”

Dennis Hawkes, a member of the Windham Land Trust, which owns an 18-acre wetland parcel along River Road, voiced concern about the impact the project might have on the trust’s property, which is mostly wetlands abutting the roadway near Windham Center Road. Hawkes said he has heard that the Windham Center Road/River Road intersection could become a roundabout, which he said he was “totally opposed to” since it would impact neighboring wetlands.

Resident Sue Wilson said crosswalks should be installed at intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Jan Day, who said she lives in a 200-year-old house “right on the road” in the Newhall area, asked, “Am I going to lose my house because you want 32 feet and 15 feet of space on the sides? That is in my house almost. And there are four houses right there. And you’ve talked about taking trees down and mailboxes, but you haven’t talked about houses.”

Martin replied saying, “As we have driven this road a number of times now, I would say, today, no, your house is not going to be taken. Obviously that’s one thing that we take into consideration is how close these houses are to the highway and what we can do to work around them.”

Donna Jasper asked about how the project would affect wells. Martin said residents will be asked to submit a sketch of their property so wells, cellar drains, leech fields and septic systems are made known to project engineers.

Since the project has yet to be approved, Andrew MacVane voiced concern that the “Cadillac Plan” may actually discourage state funding. “What if the state doesn’t accept it, do you have an Escort Plan?” MacVane asked.

Martin said a true Cadillac plan would have followed federal recommendations that call for 12-foot travel lanes and 6-foot shoulders. He said the 30-foot width being proposed by the committee is the “Escort Plan.”

Next steps

Since funding for the project has yet to be approved, Haddock informed attendees that the local process, which includes the establishment of the Public Advisory Committee as well as public hearings, was important to indicate to the state the level of local enthusiasm. If a lack of enthusiasm is shown, the state may be less likely to support the project, especially with sagging revenues and the current $1 billion budget shortfall.

Road projects are budgeted in two-year cycles. The River Road project’s fate will be decided this winter and spring as the next biennial budget is developed. If it receives funding, work would likely commence in 2012, Martin said.

And according to state Sen. Bill Diamond, there are two ways to fund the project: The transportation department, through the governor’s budget, could include the project in its biennial budget, or the Legislature could fund the project. Diamond, who along with Mark Bryant and Gary Plummer, Windham’s state representatives, has been lobbying on behalf of the project for years now, said the public could know as soon as the end of January whether the project has the green light.

“The thing to remember is that there are two ways to get this done,” Diamond said. “If the governor puts it in his budget, that’s a huge step because it means it has the blessing of the transportation department and the governor’s office. But if they don’t, then the legislature would need to inject it into the budget. We can do that, but it’s much more difficult.”

Diamond said if the governor’s budget doesn’t include the River Road project, funding could be up in the air until possibly May when the Legislature finishes budget deliberations.

The state has said funding may only be available for one of two major road projects proposed by the town of Windham, one that would reconstruct an intersection on Route 302 and one that would reconstruct River Road, above.

Copy the Story Link