Sentinel Editorial
Share the cost of bridge work equally
Posted:
Friday, January 17, 2014 12:00 pm
Let’s make a deal.
The Vermont Agency of Transportation recently made the N.H.
Department of Transportation an offer. Vermont’s agency would pay the entire
cost of rehabilitating the Vilas Bridge, which connects Route 12 in Walpole to
downtown Bellows Falls. But then, New Hampshire would pay Vermont’s portion of
all future repairs to bridges spanning the Connecticut River until the $4-6
million is repaid.
The motivation for the
offer isn’t hard to discern. Since the bridge was closed by the N.H. DOT in
2009, merchants in Bellows Falls have complained their business is off by about
30 percent. That certainly provides some incentive on the river’s west bank to
reopen the 84-year-old bridge.
But there are a lot of bridges – and other projects – on New
Hampshire’s transportation to-do list, and there has apparently been little
furor about lost revenue in Walpole. New Hampshire’s explanation for pushing
off work to reopen the Vilas Bridge has centered around the fact that there are
two other bridges spanning the river nearby, including the New Arch Bridge,
which also leads into Bellows Falls.
At first blush, Vermont’s offer seems like a windfall. The bridge
work gets done sooner. New Hampshire doesn’t have to pay immediately. Everyone
is happy. However, a spokesman says the N.H. DOT is unlikely to accept, and the
reasoning is sound. If the only goal is to reopen this particular bridge, the
deal is good.
But that’s not the financial reality. There are 30 bridges
spanning the Connecticut River, and New Hampshire is on the hook for nearly all
the cost of maintaining or replacing each of them. In the case of the Vilas
Bridge, for example, the Granite State is responsible for 93 percent of the
cost of any work, while Vermont must pay for 7 percent.
That’s because way back in 1764 King George II of England set the
boundary between the states ((SINCE THEY WERE COLONIES THEN, SUGGEST REPLACING
"THE STATES" EITHER WITH "NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT" OR
"THE TWO-THEN COLONIES")) as the western shore of the river. Now,
George was a lame-duck monarch at that point as far as the American colonies
went, but still, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed this boundary in 1934.
Somehow, along the way, this fact led to New Hampshire being stuck
with almost the entire tab for any bridge work, even though, as far as we know,
none of the 30 Connecticut River Bridges is one-way. No, each of them carries
cars both from the Granite State to Vermont, and from the Green Mountain State
to New Hampshire. Thus, the benefits of the bridges would appear to be equal
for each state.
There may be some instances where a town or city on one side has
clearly benefitted from the existence of a particular bridge. In the case of
Vilas, that community would appear to be Bellows Falls.
Thus, we find ourselves more intrigued by another deal, this one
proposed from this side of the river. Five Cheshire County lawmakers have put
forth a bill this session calling((??)) limiting the amount New
Hampshire would pay for the overhaul of the bridge to 50 percent, assuming
someone else would pay the remaining 50 percent.
Of course, the N.H. Legislature can’t force Vermont to pay more
for a bridge repair than it would normally under the two states’ existing
agreement. But it would seem in the case of a bridge New Hampshire considers a
low priority and Vermont is clearly more eager to see reopened, there might
just be some incentive there. In fact, we think the two states should revisit
the idea of who’s responsible ((. . . SHOULD REVISIT THE FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY)) for all bridge work along the border ((TO BETTER
REFLECT THE MUTUAL BENEFIT THEY ENJOY)).
The history of the Vilas Bridge is an interesting one. Where it
now spans, the very first bridge across the river went up in 1785. And in 1930,
when the current bridge was opened, it was dedicated as a “Symbol of
Friendship” between New Hampshire and Vermont.
Friends don’t let friends pay 93 percent.
No comments:
Post a Comment